Some of this account is covered in Chapter 15. Here in detail is the litany of lies that accompanied Crozier and confused the GCH staff who simply did not follow up on their protocols.
Bruce Whiteside’s meeting
with Prudence Rankin a domestic in attendance at Tom Jowett’s home on the
morning of 7 December 1999 was not accidental. Pru was one of those domestics
who used to bring Tom a baked cake or a meat pie and she got on very well with
Bruce. So it came as no surprise when she forewarned him that ACAT were coming
to assess Tom. This came as a surprise as Whiteside had requested a meeting with
Monica Barrett as far back as July. Barrett never responded and the meeting
never took place …until the eve of his departure for New Zealand. The timing was
extraordinary to say the least.
The meeting was arranged for 1.30pm. Whiteside in order to place on record that he had been appointed Tom Jowett’s EPOA, wrote a letter to the ACAT assessor, stating that he had Tom’s EPOA as of 1 December 1999. As the documentation was in transit at the time of writing, it could be confirmed by contacting Whitehead, Payne. He added that in the event of problems arising that he could be contacted. If further information was required then ACAT should contact Dr Ian Clark.
The letter was typed out
and placed in an envelope and addressed to the ASSESSOR ACAT and marked
CONFIDENTIAL. Whiteside asked Pru if she would be there when ACAT arrived and so
assured he charged her with delivering it to as it transpired, Monica Barrett.
However unbeknown to both Pru and Whiteside Carole Crozier arrived and sent the
domestic on her way. Left with no option Pru Rankin then asked Crozier to give
the envelope to ACAT. Asked whom it was from Pru said Bruce Whiteside.
By 2.30pm Whiteside went over to see Tom and hopefully to speak with ACAT. He was staggered to see Crozier in close consultation with the assessor, whom he did not know or had seen. However she did recognise him and said ‘I’m still in the process of assessing Tom, but I will call and see you shortly after I am finished here. I am aware that you want to speak with me.’ With that Whiteside went home.
An hour later he went back and went to the open door and caught Carole Crozier trying to embrace a struggling Tom. Caught in the act she hurriedly disentangled her arms, kissed Tom and made for the door. ‘I want to talk to you’, Whiteside called to her , to which she replied “I have nothing to say to you’. With that she was gone as indeed had ACAT assessor Monica Barrett.
Tom was angry and was busy wiping his mouth and obviously distressed.
Realising that something was going on, but oblivious to what had gone before Whiteside rang Rankin only to be told that she had not been able to pass the letter on to ACAT, but had passed it onto Crozier who said that she would look after it. Pru added that she had been told that she could go earlier.
With time running out and only twelve hours left before he caught the bus for New Zealand Whiteside wrote a similar letter to Dr Ian Clark, who had known Tom Jowett and Bruce Whiteside for seventeen years. He gave similar details to that he had given to ACAT, but went further in saying that in the event of serious problems provisions had been made for a hasty return if needed. With this was given contact details and addresses. This time Whiteside delivered the letter personally to Dr Clark and after discussing his concerns handed him the letter.
Later that evening Whiteside sat down and wrote to Monica Barrett. The letter obtained from freedom of information hospital files was received by Barrett the day after Whiteside’s arrival in New Zealand. (this is not to be confused with the letter intended, but withheld by Crozier)
In part the letter concluded:
"It has been of deep concern that Tom will be left alone for long periods while we are away. We do have a woman who will call on him Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, but she cannot be expected to fill in the void left by Iris and myself. Also his meals have been arranged because Meals on Wheels close down over the holiday period.
Tom knows that we will accept the undertaking of care when we come back and this is something that you may wish to discuss with us at a later date. We realise this will be determined by people like yourselves and doctors. As I have not unreasonably pointed out to the Blue Nurses, their attendance on Tom takes up approximately six hours a week. We are spending upwards of thirty to forty besides the time he spends at home. This is offered because it has been Tom’s wish for some considerable time and also that it may give you an avenue to which you may evaluate possible decisions. I have contacted Dr Ian Clark, Tom’s doctor. I have spoken with him at some length and would appreciate it if you would contact him in the likelihood of any emergency".
Before all this occurred there were two Aged Care Assessment Team forms filled out. One, a photo copied version and filled out by Carole Crozier. In the diagnosis panel this was written.
COAD, Impaired memory, loneliness, depression . PLEASE DO NOT PHONE CLIENT. Phone Carole, Thurs 2/12 on next week, to meet at home.
The referral source was
The same day, this time on a standard ACAT form another report. This time by Monica Barrett. The following were entered without Whiteside’s involvement.
friend –Bruce Whiteside.
Diagnosis Panel: Blackouts x 2, ? dementia. Wanders …. Knocking on neighbours door. Neighbours do a lot for Tom – daily basis.
Of interest this: Conflict between Carole and Bruce, allegedly.
Bruce spent a couple of hours with Tom before he retired for the night. It was hard for him as Tom was obviously distressed with his friend going away.
Next morning he was talked out of calling on Tom before he left at 4.20am, on the morning of 8 December 1999.
This is what I know, Cheers Monica (Barrett)
In a four page blow by blow account of events covering two days, this:
Dr Clark states Mr
Whiteside has POA.
On the following page:
Concern over Bruce
Whiteside. He has bi-polar disorder. (Carole Crozier Report)
Here it was in black and
white, but nobody was professional enough to pick it up. Nobody in the
Queensland Health system took the time or effort to follow up this information.
Did Tom Jowett have an EPOA? According to Ward 13 Admission Information the
Client Details ran as follows;
Contact Person: Andrew
Solicitor coming to see him. Feels Thomas is his own POA.
History of Presenting
Problems: Slow progression physical care. Disorientated, confusion. T I A’s
Once again the source of
this information was the ubiquitous Carole Crozier.
Here again the information making its way into hospital files were the uncorroborated views of a woman who by virtue of her position and calling, was never questioned. This negligence, for that is what it was, paved the way for a deception that played right into her hands and wrong-footed the hospital.
Tom Jowett was taken to the Gold Coast Hospital by Constable Sandy Kumpf, under Section 26.27 of the Mental Health Act This was essentially brought about by his state of panic caused by Bruce Whiteside’s leaving him alone. This triggered a state of anxiety that saw him approach neighbours and when they could not cope with his irrational behaviour he took his car and went for a drive. Whilst away neighbours rang Blue Nurse Carole Crozier and alerted her. This was not unusual as it had happened before. Crozier and other neighbours were in conversation when Tom returned. It was claimed that he then erratically drove the car and hit the brick letter-box. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The damage to the car had been caused much earlier and in spite of Tom’s age and eyesight he was a reasonably safe driver.
Tom’s resentment to the
reception party that greeted him resulted in some very heated exchanges which in
light of the situation that he was now in, only reinforced the general concern
for his immediate welfare. Under normal circumstances had Bruce Whiteside been
there the situation would have become his responsibility.
Crozier immediately brought Dr Clark out from his morning surgery around the corner. Dr Clark having been briefed the day before acted swiftly and contacted the GCH.
Crozier arrived at the hospital and from that point on assumed control of Tom’s entry.
Dr Amir Sajjad admitted and attended to Tom Jowett. Then in a more detailed account by Dr Kingston and in conjunction with ACAT notes he paints a picture of a very disturbed old man. Taken into a Ward 8C he is medicated and allowed to settle. The following day all signs of aggressive behaviour have abated and Tom is co-operating to the satisfaction of staff. The first four pages of Hospital Progress Notes consist of the reports obtained from ACAT and Dr Clarke. These state that the patient has progressive dementia, that he is aggressive and is in hospital for possible placement in hostel or nursing care.
Two days after admission Blue Nurse Carole Crozier is present when he is moved from Ward 8c to a secured environment Ward 13. Ward 13 houses patients that have lost their ability to grasp the simple requirements of life; it is not a pleasant place to reside. For Tom this is possibly the worst possible outcome for a man who is backed into a corner that he did not want.
What went without challenge was this move immediately after Dr Kingston had Tom Jowett moved to Dr Chai the GCH in house geriatrician. Immediately the patient is attended to by not Dr Chai, but a Dr Koenen. Dr Chai then orders another assessment by Angela Channells, the social worker. For the first day in the new ward Tom shows aggressive behaviour. Once again this is in response to being programmed and incarcerated. For the following three days Tom settled down and was apparently very pleasant. Apart from the attention to medication and general care there was no attempt to give a serious diagnosis of what was really wrong with Tom Jowett.
It took a respite nurse to see what ailed Tom, but no hospital staff, geriatrician, doctor or social worker came with sufficient skill or professionalism to make a measured assessment. Later we will come to what was wrong with Tom Jowett, but for the moment things meandered on in almost complete oblivion as to the illness that really was causing Tom Jowett’s problem.
On 13 December Angela
Channells had a session with Tom Jowett. Channells ran many of the problems that
had been recorded past him and he agreed that they were fairly accurate. She
also put the idea of hostel care to him which he appeared to accept. Next she
spoke with his medical practitioner Dr Ian Clark, who had known him for ten
years. Dr Clark felt that Tom’s condition over the past twelve months had been
steadily deteriorating, but stopped short of saying anything about dementia.
Clark refused to attend a meeting with GCH staff and the Blue nurse. No mention
was made of any legal representation. He did however say that Bruce Whiteside
who had been helping his patient in all possibility had an EPOA.
Monica Barrett was approached to attend a meeting to be held at the hospital; she agreed. The gist of the meeting was to assess what level of care would be needed, so as to facilitate the viability of affordable nursing care.
Until now those parties
approached had been seconded to attend as a party to a joint decision. Enter
Carole Crozier. She feels that Mr Jowett definitely needed placement at this
stage. She also made a deliberate request of Angela Channells that patient’s
solicitor Andrew Smyth be invited to the meeting. Crozier traded on the naivety
of the social worker here. Channells did not recognise that this request was
made not by the Blue Care organisation, but by a manipulating and scheming
servant who was angling to protect a benefit left in the old mans will. The
meeting was arranged for 16 December at 11.am. The following day Channells rang
Robbins Watson and spoke to Andrew Smyth who agreed to attend. However Smyth
proffered the information that he had not written an EPOA up, but was aware of a
rumour that Bruce Whiteside had one.
This should have alerted Channells to what was going on. Solicitors do not talk in terms of 'rumours', so why was this comment made? In order for the rumour to have credence a legal firm would have had to draw up the document. He admitted that he had not, so who had? He lied of course. The rumour came in the form of a note that Crozier had kept from ACAT assessor Monica Barrett. Smyth now knew there was a EPOA, yet chose to attend the meeting as Tom Jowett’s lawyer. Never at any stage was Tom Jowett asked as to whom he had nominated as his EPOA.
ACAT,'s Barrett and Channells were both employees of the Gold Coast Hospital. Yet two days out from the proposed meeting no attempt was made to acknowledge or contact the EPOA Bruce Whiteside holidaying in Christchurch. This was a serious administrative blunder and if the hospital staff were unaware, then both Channells and Barrett should have made it known. They did not The hospital was in the dark through lack of care and attention to detail. Smyth and Crozier who both knew of the possible existence of the document that protected the health rights of Tom Jowett , remained silent and by doing so became culpable of criminal intent.
The meeting attended by Lenore Stewart who was in charge of Ward 13, Francis Campbell , occupational therapist, Angela Channells, social worker, Carol Crozier, Blue nurse, Andrew Smyth , solicitor and Monica Barrett, ACAT assessor. Nowhere were there any doctors and least of all Dr Chai, the geriatrician whom the Chief Justice two years later was to place so much credence on his judgement.
Immediately the discussion
was hi-jacked by Crozier and Smyth. After running through the well documented
events that landed Tom Jowett in hospital both seized on the need to remove
their patient from his home. In other words the attempt to place Tom in a
nursing environment was going to go ahead in spite of his well known resistance
to such a move. The fact that both Smyth and Crozier then went out on a limb and
displayed their personal opinion of Bruce Whiteside as not being a fit and
proper person to care for Tom, and also cast spurious doubts on the authenticity
of the EPOA , caused a little concern among the others at the meeting. Crozier
and Smyth both wished to be the contact persons. Was this done to negate the
EPOA that Bruce Whiteside held? Apparently so, for the minutes of the meeting
call for Public Trust involvement; to investigate whether Bruce Whiteside has
validity and appropriateness to hold the document. Not finished yet a call was
made to involve the Adult Guardian.
It is noted in the minutes that Andrew Smyth had a set of keys. The dog Red had been disposed of by the action of Crozier. It was also stated that the house had been secured and made safe. None of this was authorised although when questioned about who had given instructions to enter Tom Jowett’s house Crozier had said that he had. No evidence to support that claim exists. When Bruce Whiteside wrote to the Blue Care seeking information the matter was referred to their lawyers.
This is the letter Whiteside wrote to Blue Care 25/6/1999'
Not answered at the time, what developed later produced this reply from Blue Care's Director.
The wrap up was that there was no follow up, the police were never called and Blue Care was awarded $20,000 from the Jowett Will.
The lawyers response, not those named in the Blue Care letter came from Deacon's. It follows:
Their answer was typical
‘lawyer speak’ that defied the element of truth and reinforced the perception
that all lawyers are inherently forked-tongued. Herein lies the duplicity
and inherent dishonesty that lawyers employ to justify their profession.
So far in this pantomime of bureaucratic errors it has been accepted without demur or professional opinion that Tom Jowett had ‘dementia’. From the word of a community nurse with an agenda of gain as her driving principle, the stamp of dementia is everywhere it counts. Prior to her intervention there is no specific mention in a six year history of hospital files of Tom Jowett having dementia. At this point the doctors, nurses and staff act in accordance with him having diminishing capacity. For all intents and purposes he is not able to make decisions, because according to Crozier and Smyth, he lacks the capacity to understand. That being the case if Crozier acted on his instructions, she did so as Bruce Whiteside had done. According to her she took instructions from Tom Jowett to enter the house and seize documents and specifically the copy of the Will that made her a beneficiary of $20,000.
In responding to Mr Whiteside’s letter to Blue Care Deacon’s wrote:
Mr Jowett made the request of our client that the documents in question be delivered to his solicitor at the time when he was capable of formulating and understanding the nature of that request. Our clients simply complied with that request.
The letter goes on:
The fact that somebody appoints another person as his or her attorney pursuant to an enduring document does not prevent that person from making decisions in his or her own right when capable of doing so.
Whiteside’s argument was not that Tom Jowett could not make decisions outside the EPOA, but rather that both Smyth and Crozier could hardly take instructions from a man who was being held up as suffering dementia, yet vigorously challenge Bruce Whiteside. Not only was his integrity being questioned and questioned publicly, but cast aspersions on Whitehead, Payne. This reply said in effect that it was alright for Smyth to act on instructions, but not for Bruce Whiteside. The inconsistency here underlines how lawyers work.
This letter is a litany of lies. The instructions mentioned were never delivered by Tom Jowett. This letter was written on uncorroborated information and is therefore written to fulfil the needs of their client. Integrity in its substance is therefore no existant. This is why lawyers are detested and regarded with less than respect . The public have a right to expect honesty, integrity and justice. None of these things are tools of their profession.
Lawyers as far as Bruce Whiteside is concerned are a law unto themselves. Here he quotes novelist and former lawyer John Grisham:
Then the difficult part: virtually everyone involved in the legal process that led to bad conviction is cloaked in immunity. A judge is immune from a wrongful conviction lawsuit regardless of how poorly he handled the trial. A prosecutor is immune as long as he does his job …that is, as long as he prosecutes. And a policeman is immune
Bruce Whiteside: This is wrong. Immunity opens the way for a corrupted system. All legal eagles from the very top down are no more than human beings, who are equally capable of being dishonest, deceptive and criminal. Their position in society and the community as a whole is marinated in the belief that they are all wisdom. all knowledge and all powerful. Down the ages judges and lawyers have sent innocent men to the gallows; have ruined lives through careless or biased judgements and have gone on to repeat these flawed decisions. It is their own brethren who make, shape and put in place the immunity that protects them from accountability. To claim accountability because of immunity is to negate integrity, honesty and responsibility. If these men were sincere and if they were men at all they would put their profession on the line. As things stand they remain cowards with protection. Many abuse their profession at the cost of public distrust. But who cares
Return to Book Index