SA government ‘trying to control information flow’ to inquest, court told

The testimony of a top doctor so far prevented from giving evidence about ramping at an inquest into three deaths could “embarrass” the state, a South Australian court has been told.

The former site director at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, Megan Brooks, was summonsed to give evidence at the inquest into the ramping-related deaths of Anna Vincenza Panella, Bernard Anthony Skeffington and Graham Henry Jessett between April 2019 and March 2022.

But Dr Brooks told the Coroners Court she feared her evidence could breach the SA Public Sector Code of Ethics because SA Health refused to allow her to reveal official information about ramping and delayed transfer of care.

After expressing her concerns, Deputy State Coroner Ian White used a section of the Coroners Act to issue a certificate which would compel Dr Brooks to give evidence while providing protection from disciplinary action for breaching the code.

The attorney-general then applied to the Supreme Court for a judicial review of Mr White’s decision, arguing he had exceeded his power by granting the certificate.

On Monday, Tom Cox KC, on behalf of Dr Brooks, told the court the state was trying to control the information presented to the Coroners Court.

“Part of the submission we make is that the state was really trying to control the information flow to the [deputy] coroner,” he said.

He also told the court that lawyers for the state had expressed concerns about Dr Brooks’s evidence in a letter penned on June 7, 2024.

He said the letter stated that Dr Brooks’s evidence may “intend to embarrass the state without notice”, after her resignation letter was circulated in the media in 2022.

Dr Brooks’s resignation letter outlined her concerns and frustrations from her time as the medical lead for acute and urgent care at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

In the letter, addressed to then-chief executive of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network Lesley Dwyer, she said patients “deserve so much better”.

“[Claims] that clinicians in ED and inpatient teams ‘just aren’t working hard enough’ and ‘want to keep patients in hospital’ could not be further from the truth, or indeed more offensive,” she wrote.

“The ED clinicians are as horrified as I am by our daily inability to provide care to patients when they need it.”

Counsel for the state, Alison Doecke KC, told the court the attorney-general took issue with the way the certificate was issued but did not seek to silence Dr Brooks.

“This is not a case where the attorney-general is seeking to silence Dr Brooks nor seeking to prevent her evidence from being received,” she said.

“It is the manner in which the second certificate has been issued that has failed to properly apprehend the witness for the jurisdiction of the coroner.

“It is a matter of public importance to determine that now because it not only relates to this matter but the way in which the Coroners Court interpreted and applied [the relevant legislation].”

But Dr Cox told the court that Ms Doecke had requested to view a draft affidavit on the “basis [that it] wouldn’t be used against her”.

“Ms Doecke had asked counsel assisting [the coroner] if a draft affidavit could be provided of what Dr Brooks would say in her evidence so SA Health would be able to provide some assurances about any potential disciplinary issues,” he said.

In Supreme Court documents previously obtained by the ABC, lawyers for the state argued Mr White “acted beyond the power” of the Coroners Act by providing a certificate to Dr Brooks before she answered any ramping-related questions.

“[Mr White] erred in determining that the interests of justice required [Dr Brook’s] give evidence,” the documents state.

“The only factor [Mr White] considered with respect to the interest of justice was [Dr Brooks’s] career and involvement with the RAH [Royal Adelaide Hospital], FMC [Flinders Medical Centre] and SA Health.”

Supreme Court Justice Ben Doyle will hand down his decision into the judicial review next month.