HOP INTO A KANGAROO COURT

 

MEDICAL BOARD STYLE

 

 

Background

Due Process. The Drugs & Poisons Unit went through a protocol that would seem necessary in order to take an issue to Court :

·        There was an attendance by Mr Chris Falcke on 13/5/1998, to remind me of the regulations, laws and expectations.

·        There was another interview 12/6/2001, by two officers, Mr Chris Falcke and Dr Malcolm Dobbin

·        There was the formal, recorded interview 17/10/2002 with Mr J McCormack and Mr F Boland. The advance list of patient names included two names that had not been considered in 2001. One was MM, who I strongly suspect tried to set me up, by taking an overdose of paracetamol (mentioned elsewhere). However, at the interview, these two named patients were not discussed, and were not dealt-with subsequently. (They were probably dropped because the decision to proceed to Court had already been made, and the interview would concentrate only on those for whom a prior interview could be quoted.) This interview seemed concerned that many, if not all the patients should be considered drug addicts. The two left saying that they would consider what action, if any, they would take next. Some months later Mr McCormack telephoned in to say that the Department was considering proceeding to lay Charges and take the matter to Court. He wanted to know details of my lawyer. (A patient [and now recognized to be a] double-agent claimed at about that time, that I was to be Charged with a non-indictable offence with a non-custodial sentence; inside knowledge ?)

Charges were laid, and the matter went to the Magistrates’ Court  

Court

The Drugs and Poisons Unit of the Department of Human Services took the matter of lapses in valid Permits (time and quantity) to the Magistrates’ Court. The Hearing was on 18/3/2004. I was represented by Mr Robert Stary. He wanted to keep things simple, and settle the issue that day. Accordingly, the plea was guilty, and the explanation was that the lapses were oversights in the ongoing management of patients with established non-malignant, chronic pain-producing conditions (eg Crohn’s disease). No patient came to any harm. The Magistrate seemed to accept this, recorded a conviction recorded and placed me on a good behaviour bond for 12 months and required me to pay $1000 to the Court Fund “poor box.”

Referral to the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria

On Friday, 24/12/2004, Mr Keith Moyle, Manager, Drugs and Poisons Unit, sent a referral letter[1] to Mr John Smith, Deputy CEO of the Medical Practitioners Board (“MPB”) noting that “some documents, including the transcript of interview, have only recently been retrieved. Included was an investigation report which commented on the laws; “. . . . a breach of these provisions has serious implications for the community, because it results in drugs of dependency becoming available without proper control or precautions.” Dear reader, you may wonder, as I do, about the nine months gestation in referring the matter, why he wrote it to Mr John Smith and why he wrote the Referral on Christmas eve. Mr John Smith used to be a bureaucrat and Secretary to the Medical Board while it was a Sub-department in the State Health Department before the Board was made more autonomous in 1994. As such he would have worked in the some building as Mr Moyle. Those who know the Melbourne Medical scene between Christmas and the end of January, know that non-urgent medical services are nearly abandoned and dysfunctional, as most of the practitioners and staff head for summer holidays. There would be skeleton staff remaining. The letter was not directed to the President of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer or Ms Clare Lethlean, Manager of the Professional Conduct Department. (Clare Lethlean was in the same position in September 2005, when there was correspondence with a patient DF, which strongly implicated the Board in nefarious activities aimed against me regarding patient DF – see later/elsewhere on the website.) Could the referral have been a longed-for Christmas present for Mr Smith, at a time when others may not have been present to oversee ? Clare Lethlean replied to Mr Moyle on 10/1/2005 with a standard letter and (presumably) her initials on the file reference.

Preliminary Conference.

This was on 16/9/2005, with Mr John Smith in the Chair. I noted that the complaint from the Drugs & Poisons unit came after the complaints from the patients in the UHF treatment matter. There was a gentleman’s agreement to defer the Drugs & Poisons Unit case until after the UHF treatment Hearing. Subsequently, this did not seem to cover the interval for the appeal on the outcome of the UHF treatment Hearing. So, with an appeal underway, I sought to defer the Drugs & poisons Unit hearing until after the appeal was concluded.

Application for a Deferment was sought from Dr Joanna Flynn, President of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria :

 

Dr Joanna Flynn,

President

Medical Practitioners Board

GPO Box 773H

MELBOURNE VIC 3001

 

Your Ref.: F/H 19/2005:jhs:bb

8/2/2006

 

Dear Dr Flynn,

                        Re.; Hearing Date 28/3/2006

 

I refer to the Board’s letter dated 1/2/2006, received 6/2/2006, in which a Hearing relating to a referral from Mr Moyle dated 24/12/2004 has been set for 28/3/2006. I request deferment on the following grounds :

 

1)       There is another matter currently under consideration by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT;” B109-2005), being a review of a Board Hearing and Determination, due to have an Hearing with the VCAT on 15/5/2006, and is a current judicial process (eg F/H 28/2002 etc).

2)       The Moyle referral came well after the commencement of the current judicial process, meaning that there is a temporal inconsistency

3)       The Panel in the current judicial process denied me an extension of time for preparing a final submission to match the Board’s extension, taken without application (procedurally unfair)

4)       There was an understanding at the Directions Hearing for the Moyle referral that the Moyle matter would be deferred until the completion of the current judicial process

5)       The Board’s lawyers have applied for, and obtained, a substantial extension in the current judicial process

6)       Following the Hearing of 2005, Mr Smith did not act speedily and reliably to follow the Orders of Senior Member Davis of the VCAT

7)       I believe that, given the abovementioned points, there is an unfairness in procedure to have the preparation of the two matters running over the same time interval.

 

I therefore request that the Hearing scheduled for 28/3/2006 (F/H 19/2005) be deferred until after the completion of the current judicial process.

 

                                                  Yours truly

 

                                                       Dr Malcolm A Traill

 

This was not received with enthusiasm, with no reply from the President of the Board (to whom I had written), but a reply from Mr John Smith, seemingly delegating the signing-out to Ms B Broberg :

 

Ref: F/H 19/2005:jhs:bb

6 March 2006 Private&Confidenial

Dr Malcolm A Traill

10 Munro St

KEW EAST VIC 3102

 Dear Dr Traill

I refer to your letter of 8 February 2006 in which you requested that the Board defer the formal hearing into your alleged unprofessional conduct scheduled for 28 March 2006 until the matter of your application for review of an earlier (and unrelated) Panel finding and determination is determined by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('VCAT').

The Board is not prepared to agree to your request for the following reasons:

1.                                    It is in the public interest that the Board conducts its statutory duties to hear and
determine matters of alleged unprofessional conduct under the Medical Practice Act 1994
in an expeditious manner.

2.                                    The matters that will be the subject of the formal hearing scheduled for 28 March 2006
and the matters before VCAT are not related, other than both being allegations of
unprofessional conduct.

3.                                    An adverse finding by a Panel would not influence VCAT's review.

4.                                    Preparation for the formal hearing on 28 March 2006 should not be impacted upon by
preparation for the review in VCAT, which is scheduled to be heard more than six weeks
after the formal hearing. In addition, the facts in the matters for the formal hearing, being
the  Court's  findings,   are   not  in   dispute  (as  was   recognised   at  the  Preliminary
Conference).

5.                                    There was no understanding reached at the Preliminary Conference that the formal
hearing would be deferred until a review in VCAT was completed.   The Preliminary
Conference was held on 16 September 2005, a month prior to the making of the Panel's
findings and determinations which are the subject of the VCAT review. At the Preliminary
Conference it was agreed that the formal hearing of this matter would not occur until after
the Panel had provided its findings and determination in relation to the matter now before
VCAT - the Panel did that on 19 October 2005.

While the Board is not prepared to delay or defer the formal hearing scheduled for 28 March 2006, it is prepared to submit to the Panel that upon conclusion of the hearing of the evidence, there should be no determinations made until after VCAT completes its review. This will allow for submissions on determination of penalty to be made after the outcome of VCAT's review is known.  (MAT’s emphasis)

I am now able to advise you that Mr James Gorton will be Counsel Assisting the Panel in this matter. Please note that you are to provide the names of any witnesses that you intend to call by 7 March 2006. The list should be provided to the Board's Solicitors, Minter Ellison, marked to the attention of Brendan Murray. Their addresses for service of such material is Level 23, 525 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000; Telephone: (03) 8608 2003; Facsimile: (03) 8608 1118; Email: brendan.murray@minterellison.com.

 

Yours sincerely

Ms B Broberg for:

John H Smith

Deputy Chief Executive Officer

 

(There are clues elsewhere in the story to point to the possibility that the outcome of the VCAT Hearing was known in advance. Certainly, careful and analytical examination of the VCAT Appeal Finding and Reasons gives considerable support for this conclusion. The order of the Hearings, their Findings and Determinations, would seem to have a purpose, to the Board’s advantage.)

 

The Hearing of 2006 (Drugs & Poisons Unit’s issue) Précis, Transcript & notes. There is editing, to more accurately represent the spoken version, with notes in blue. The sayings of Mr Gorton are highlighted in red. Some points are highlighted and quotations highlighted with other colours and script types, to aid identity. References are to Page and line in the official transcript.

 

The Board’s 2006 Hearing started with the usual Preamble from the Chairman D Horne. Without asking for any comment from me, he then asked Mr O’Neill, Barrister for the Board, to present the outline for the Hearing. Mr O’Neill had not prepared his material well and had some matters garbled and confused, stimulating comments and corrections from Mr M Gorton, the Solicitor and locum tenens Panel Member, who had been drawn (probably) by Mr John Smith, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, from the Governor-in-Council’s standby list of names. (The questionable aspects of this selection, has been examined elsewhere on my website, and will be dealt-with in more detail in another section under the general heading of the Kangaroo Court.)

Eventually, I was asked to speak, and I raised the issue of an adjournment. I noted that I had written to the President of the Board, requesting that the Hearing be postponed until after the VCAT outcome of the earlier MPB Hearing from 2005. I had received a letter, seemingly written by Mr John H Smith, Deputy CEO, but signed out by Ms Broberg, which did not grant the postponement. It permitted the Determination following the current Hearing to be deferred until after the VCAT outcome. I considered that this response was unsatisfactory, and that the President should have responded on such a significant matter, instead of allowing the letter to be sent without the clear involvement of a Board member. I noted that I had raised concerns about the probity of the office of the MPB, and that a trusted officer, such as Mr Smith, could easily have telephoned one of his mates in the D&PU*, “saying to the effect ‘We have a doctor we would like you to have come to our area. I’m sure you can assist with this special favour for us.’[2] To return the favour, the Drugs and Poisons Unit officer would be able to

(1)               Generally harass me;

(2)               Shorten significantly, the permit durations;

(3)               Demand consultation (sic; try consultants’) opinion;

(4)               Hold up permits pending consultation consultant opinions;

(5)               Lose permit applications;

(6)               Pursue me regarding a patient who I ceased seeing about two weeks after receiving an alert letter; and

(7)               Demand dose reductions without consultation et cetera.[3]

 All these actions were done to the degree that the Drugs and Poisons Unit officers effectively became my employers with the responsibilities, an unacceptable relationship with a medical professional in private practice.[4]*Prior to 1994, the Medical Board was part of the State Health Department, and Mr Smith was a public servant.

I noted that there seemed coincidental dates possibly linking the matters within the office of the MPB before the previous Hearing with those for the current Hearing; that the D&PU released a cohort of “Alert” notices, at about the time that the Complaint from an Associate Professor was received, stimulating involvement of one patient in the earlier Hearing.

(8)               I have difficulty rejecting the possibility that Mr Smith was not involved in the scandalous and unconscionable, if not illegal, conduct involving the MPB, Professor Paul Desmond and Dr John Nettleton, as outlined in Ms DF’s affidavit, which I will submit subsequently.[5][This matter was a reasonably clear case of the MPB being involved in machinations to set me up – refer to “A BASE BOARD on this website.]


 

 

Of particular concern is the role of Mr John Smith, . . . Issues and points of concern to be aired at the VCAT will be summarized in the section below I have here. . . .[6]” “Mr John Smith has, over the last 16 years held a trusted, powerful and influential position within the office of the Medical Practitioners Board. As such, he has been in a position to influence, in many ways . . . .[7]” (listed). “. . . Mr Smith’s influence may have progressively affected the impartiality, not merely of the Medical Practitioners Board, but particularly the panels of the more recent Hearings.[8]

I submit that, given all the points above, an impartial bystander should entertain a suspicion of bias with the operation of the Medical Practitioners Board and its Panels, and that this may not relate only to me.[9]

The status of the Panel for the Hearing of 2005 was examined, then – “In the final analysis the panel was not representing the Medical Practitioners Board, but rather, the panel was representing the Office of the Medical Practitioners Board, overseen by Mr Smith. He was their supervisor.[10]

I submit that there has been a selection process for the Panel(s) involving criteria which has not been declared and which has introduced bias. I also submit that the Panel (2005) did not comply with the spirit, intention or wording of the legislation regarding selection of panel members. That a Panel without a Board member is not legally competent, appropriate and/or is without standing for making judgments and determinations, and that the Panel has perpetrated a deception.[11]

The Medical Practitioners Board Bulletin, March 2006, presented a full report of the Hearing and noted aspects of the VCAT appeal and undertakings. My understanding is that, after an appeal is lodged, there is an embargo on such reporting.[12]

I am concerned over the propriety of the Office of the Medical Practitioners Board and the role of Mr Smith in assembling the report, and its effect in influencing and prejudicing this and the VCAT Hearing, given that the outcome in not resolved.[13]

These allegations are, of course, most serious and I’m not doing them lightly. There’s reasoning behind all this and evidence; documentation. They lie outside the competence of the Medical Board to assess. You can hardly assess your own function. They are issues to be heard before the VCAT, and it follows that the outcome of the VCAT should clear the way for the Hearing of the Drugs and Poisons issue, which is the current one, which, around the other way, could prejudice the VCAT Hearing if it (the MPB) held it (the current Hearing) before it (the VCAT Hearing). The current should be deferred until after the VCAT Hearing, and it is for these reasons that I apply for an adjournment.[14]

The Chairman Dr Horne, then asked Mr O’Neill, Barrister for the board, to speak:

Firstly, members of the Panel, I didn’t know there was an adjournment application, otherwise I wouldn’t have gone on. I would have allowed that to be made. . . .[15]” He then goes on to comment that the earlier case was relating to the treatment of cancer patients with hyperthermia. I questioned if that was relevant and Mr Gorton retorts that if Mr O’Neill had “any submissions to be made that . . indicates that this is a totally different kettle of fish, then I think we’re interested in hearing that.” Mr O’Neill summarized the treatments, to which Mr Gorton said “None of the charges or allegations had nothing (sic) to do with the Drugs and Poisons - - - .[16]” Mr O’Neill responded “Nothing whatsoever. Convictions were recorded in respect of that treatment as being unprofessional conduct.[17]” The earlier matter was under Appeal and to be heard de novo and both Mr Gorton and Mr O’Neill seemed satisfied that the outcome of the current Hearing, whether adverse or not, would not influence the VCAT – “So they’re really irrelevant.[18]” Mr Gorton (seemingly, to Mr O’Neill) “Is there anything else you’d like to address.[19]” Without anything further from Mr O’Neill, the Chairman then felt he should speak, and called for an adjournment of 15 minutes to consider the matter.

FIRST RECESS

After the break, the Chairman handed the issue to Mr Gorton who, from the Transcript, then spoke on it :

I will just make another point about Dr Traill’s submissions. Firstly, the constitution of an earlier Panel Hearing (on) an unrelated matter is irrelevant to the allegations made in this case. This Panel does not accept that a Hearing today can, or possibly could, prejudice the Hearing at (the) VCAT of the proceeding that we have been told about. The Panel rejects any suggestion actual, or implied that it is biased against Dr Traill in any way.’

‘The Panel notes that Dr Traill has pleaded guilty to the Charges in the Magistrates’ Court, and it is the fact of pleading guilty there that has resulted in these allegations being made under the Medical Practice Act. The Panel does not intend to make any comment about the statements made about Mr Smith or other members of the Board. And this Hearing will proceed today.[20]

Mr Gorton then asked if I wished to “. . . say anything in relation to the Charges or the allegations rather ?[21]

I then spoke on the outcome of the Magistrates’ Court Hearing – whilst I pleaded guilty, I believed that the infringements did not represent unprofessional conduct[22]. The Magistrate registered a conviction because I pleaded guilty; it was black and white law and, consistent with the explanation provided, namely, that there were oversights, he placed me on a good behaviour bond for one year, and required me to put $1,000 in the Court Fund – all consistent with him not considering the matter of major, and deliberate infringements[23].

To clarify understanding, I then started providing dictionary definitions relating to relevant words, starting with those related to addiction.[24] However, this was interrupted by the Chairman (a doctor), saying that “. . . we’re fairly aware with the definitions these things . . .[25]” I noted that, based on the earlier Hearing, definitions “couldn’t be assumed.[26]” Mr Gorton then chipped in, claiming that the definitions “. . . bear no relationship to these allegations here. . . . that on a number of occasions you prescribed Schedule 8 drugs beyond a period of time for which you had a permit to do so and in excess quantities. . . [27]” Despite this, I ploughed on with the definition for “Prescription

(1)               A direction newly written by the doctor to the pharmacist for the preparation and use of a medicine or remedy.

(2)               The medicine prescribed,[28]

And ‘Entrapment’ “A person is entrapped when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers . . . .[29]” Mr Gorton cuts in - “I’m sorry Dr Traill, but here – you’ve pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and that’s really the beginning and end of this proceeding, in the sense of the allegations being established. The question the Panel is concerned with is what, if anything, it should do by way of a Determination.[30]” I elaborated “I’m trying to present the issue, that the events leading to the Magistrates’ Court was, in fact, an entrapment, and therefore, the significance of the Magistrates’ Court Findings, well, they should be greatly reduced, to the point of being insignificant.[31]” Mr Gorton retorts “Well, the time to have argued about that was at the Magistrates’ Court, its not now - - .” I asserted “Well, I disagree; I think the Magistrates’ Court in (sic; try “and”) this Hearing have different (emphases) – and that’s what Forbes[32] refers to – how they have different emphasis and different applications; and there is evidence – its come to light, which, since the Magistrates’ Court, which we didn’t have at the Magistrates’ Court; for instance, the attitude of the Drugs and Poisons Unit after the Magistrates’ Court, which was quite different from the time before (the Court).’

I hadn’t changed significantly, the patients hadn’t changed, but the Drugs and Poisons Unit changed. There was a difference – and I’ve got this here, and I was going to present that to you; it will be in my submission when I hand it over.’

And we can see whether, in fact, an entrapment occurred; in which case, the Charges, whilst they are in black and white and I pleaded guilty, are of an insignificant nature, because, basically, they have been produced by a deceptive means.[33]

Mr Gorton speaks (seemingly taking the rôle of the Chairman, making a statement and speaking on behalf of the others on the Panel, but without consultation with the others on the Panel; unless there had been some Panel consensus on the issue of entrapment during the First Recess; a policy which had not been preceded by debate, and had not been enunciated immediately after the Recess.) – “Just pardon me. Dr Traill, the Panel is not prepared to listen to any allegations (and) submissions of (sic; try “on”) entrapment, on the basis that they’re utterly irrelevant to this proceeding. What we need to hear from you are submissions as to whether these particular events, which are the subject of the allegations, constitute serious misconduct or not serious.[34](I would have thought that that was exactly what I was doing.) I responded “Well, my argument is that, of course, if they were brought about by entrapment, well, it’s not serious. And, in fact, they should be thrown out.[35]Mr Gorton again answers on behalf of the PanelWell, that’s an argument we’re not prepared to entertain, and I wouldn’t agree with the submission in any event, but that’s beside the point.[36](He hadn’t heard the submission !) I reply Well. You haven’t heard any submission on it. I don’t see how you could reject it without having heard a proper submission on it.[37]” Mr Gorton replies “I’m not interested in hearing anything about entrapment. The facts are established by the allegations made and the guilty plea.[38](Mr Gorton, without consulting the other Panel Members, assumed total control over the issue.) I respond “Well, I’ll just note that I believe that you’ve restricted my defence and you’ve cut me off from providing a reasonable defence on the grounds of entrapment and how it could be relevant. We’ll press on, on that basis with a – and I would submit that that reflects bias . . .” I then summarize the Magistrates’ Court events. “. . I pleaded guilty. This was because the Court was dealing with the black and white issue of legal compliance, and there was little point in pleading extenuating circumstances of a professional type.[39]

‘The Court Hearing was not the time nor the place for such a defence. The Magistrate accepted the main reason given for the lapses that they were oversights in a busy clinic. He accepted that the patients had comprised a relatively small group of patients who were involved in ongoing treatment relationships with me, but they were usually Permitted before and after the lapses, and that the patients were not large numbers of feral, roaming drug addicts. I’m told to repeat that – they were not large numbers of feral, roaming drug addicts. I was looking after patients.[40]

‘The Magistrate recorded a conviction and ordered me to pay $1000 to the Court Fund and adjourn the matter for 12 months. Costs were not awarded against me. The money was paid on time and the 12 months passed without incident. Accordingly, I believe that the Court matter is closed. On Friday, 24 December, 2004, Mr Keith Moore (sic; try “Moyle”) of the Drugs and Poisons Unit wrote to Mr John Smith*, reporting the County Court Hearing. Mr Moyle erred in facts. He actually erred in three facts in this letter. I have only documented two, I think. The date of the Hearing – the Court Hearing, was wrong. He used the term ‘prescriptions’ when he’s talking about ‘items,’ (and that’s why I was going to define ‘prescriptions,’ but he[Mr Gorton] didn’t seem to want me to define that, so we’ll have to clarify that another way.)’

‘He [Mr Moyle] talked of 24 months, when it was only 12 months. Yes, he said 21 offences, and there were 23 offences. Well, that’s a pretty good score for a short letter like that. So, if he can get so many points wrong in a letter, you wonder what else he can get wrong in that Department. So, now, most of the breaches occurred in 2000 to 2002. Actually, I’ve got 2001 here, but that did include 2002. The County Court Hearing was in March 2004, and the current Hearing is in March 2006; thus some five years have elapsed since the breaches have occurred.[41]*Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Board. (Why to Mr Smith ? Perhaps a letter to the President or the Chief Executive Officer would have been more appropriate, unless there was a plan to bypass them.)

Mr Gorton interrupts “You say County Court, Dr Traill. I’m sorry to interrupt you, but you’ve said County Court twice now. Do you mean Magistrates’ Court ?[42] I reply “Well, I don’t know. It’s the Magistrates’ Court in the County Court building. As far as I recall - - -[43]Mr Gorton (again)  “You appeared before a Magistrate ?[44]” I answered “I believe so, yes. (Did it matter ?) Now, most of the breaches I’ve said. Much has changed since then. I’ve dropped out of the primary care setting, I’m now semi-retired. I only see about 20 consultations per week, usually in the morning. There are considerably fewer pressures to distract from the necessity of remembering to submit Permit applications, and I am no longer being harassed by the Drugs and Poisons Unit Officers, as part of an harassment campaign.’

The current Hearing documentation: there are significant deficiencies in documentation provided by the Medical Practitioners Board in its Book of Evidence. The documentation that is not provided: (grammar as written - )

‘Now, the defective documentation: The summary of Charges in (the) attached documentation – that’s Tab 4 of the Book of Evidence - in (sic; try “is”) unattributed, unsigned, undated and not in a sworn statement. As such, it is of hearsay standing and, (in) the circumstances of harassment and entrapment, carries very little weight, if any at all. Two patients cannot be accurately identified, because of incorrect spelling. The letter from Mr Keith Moyle on 24/12/2004 stating – that’s right; that’s where he was wrong; I won’t repeat that.’

‘Because of these significant deficiencies, the Panel has not been provided with information necessary in order for it to make accurate and true assessments of the issues.’

‘The current Hearing: naturally, I am concerned with, and regret that the oversights and omissions occurred. I was then and am now doing my utmost to try to prevent further lapses. At the relevant times I tried my best endeavours to adhere to the laws, but in the context concerned, oversights and lapses occurred, which I tried to avoid. They were not deliberately made. I was not trying to prove a point.’

‘At all times, I have been aware of the importance of the need to regulate the delivery of Section 8 poisons to the public, of a need to prevent doctor-shopping and to control the escalating demand for an increased consumption of a Section 8 poison by those with an addiction problem. Over the relevant time I did endeavour to observe the spirit of the legislation, but with imperfections.’

‘Having said this, I note;

Mr Gorton interjectsCan I interrupt you again Doctor here, and ask, are you saying that any of these named patients were in the situation of having the Department refuse a Permit ?[46]” – Yes.[47]Well, which ones ?[48]I continue “Well, if you let me proceed - - [49]Mr Gorton interjects again “You’re going to get to details are you, rather than a general sweeping statement ?[50]” I continue “Well, this is an introduction, if you like. I’ve got several more pages to go here.[51]” Mr Gorton retorted “Yes, we want some details about these particular patients.[52]” I point out “I’ve got a chart with them; I’ve got a Table with them.[53]” Mr Gorton again retorts “Well, we’re anxious to see.[54](If he was so anxious to see, why did he keep interrupting ?) I ask “Can I press on ?[55]” “Yes, go on.[56]” I continue –

‘All the issues listed above occurred during the relevant time, and I shall illustrate later, the bases for my conclusion that the Drugs and Poisons Unit was conducting an entrapment campaign, with the intention, ultimately, to bring me to an open Hearing, as described earlier. Well, I tried to describe it earlier. The current Hearing: Examples. They generally harassed me to encourage lapses and oversights. This can be seen in the examples below. They will be in Chart form.’

‘The significant feature is that the harassment ceased abruptly with the Court Hearing on 18/3/2004. It was as if a wand had been waved. The Unit left me and my patients entirely alone. This sequence is quite consistent with the proposal presented earlier, that someone in the Office of the Medical Practitioners Board enticed the Drugs and Poisons Unit to harass, in a way so that I would be brought to the Court and, subsequently, referred to the Board.’

‘Having complied with the assignment to get me to Court, and the Unit’s job done, it lost interest, and ceased its harassment miraculously. . . The requested durations in the application(s) and those in the Permits granted, are set out in Charts one and two, which I’ll give you ultimately, in bound form.’

‘The Court date had an almost miraculous effect upon the Drugs and Poisons Unit; by shortening the drug granted Permit durations often to one, three, four and six months, the Unit made remembering to renew the applications very difficult, especially when there seemed little constancy. It was certain to produce lapses and oversights, if applied to almost any practitioner to whom it was applied. It was a variation of entrapment. I’ve got one of the Charts here, which is Chart one (which you will get ultimately), and it shows a number of features: (I was pointing to the Charts in my proposed and bound, written submission, which may be found elsewhere on my website.)

‘The difference with the attitude of the Unit is shown in Chart two, with the applications sought and Permits granted after the 18th of the Third (March). One does not have to apply statistical methods to appreciate that there has been a significant change. I have not changed, the patients have not changed, the Drugs and Poisons Unit have changed. (Pointing) And that’s the Chart afterwards. There was only one exception, where they didn’t give me a year on application, and that was because it was some six days after the Court Hearing. The only Permit duration less than the requested twelve months was issued on 24/3/2004; the officer in the Drugs and Poisons Unit was still applying the old policy from before the Court Hearing on the 18th of the Third. . .

‘Of seven patients before the Court date, there were a total of ten directives or demands for consultant opinions. In the case of MB, there were four. This number would seem excessive, biased, vindictive and vexatious. There seems to have been no demand for Ms DF*, (and I’ve got an affidavit from her). After the Court date, which is two years ago, there has been no such demand for these consultant opinions, not one ! It’s as though the world has changed. Again, it is the Drugs and Poisons Unit that has changed.   *There is the real  possibility that they let her ‘run unchecked’ because I was to be set-up by the Office of the Board, St Vincent’s Hospital Officers and Dr Nettleton – the plan being to gain free and unrestricted access to my clinical notes on her (see A BASE BOARD). Consistent with such a plan, the “loss” of a Permit application for two drugs sent after the Interview of 17/10/2002, would seem logical and even expected. 

Now, if you get a warning jaywalking across the street by a policeman, you don’t expect to be charged three years later for jaywalking do you ? And that’s a warning. These aren’t warning; these are alert notices – I’ve got an example or two for you. I might read – while we’re talking about them, I might read them out, read one out, anyway, just to tell you that they are not warnings. This is, as usual, dated 21 March 2001. That’s when they (the Officers) start, and press the green button to get started. This Permit, Dear Dr Traill, the permit that you hold to prescribe morphine, a drug from (sic; try “for”) JJ, has expired. If you wish to continue to prescribe this drug for this patient, you are advised to obtain a new Permit. Yours sincerely, Chris Fackel, Consultant.’ There’s no warning in that. It’s an informative, polite, ‘Hey fella, you’re not quite right here but, you know, we’re watching,’ I suppose you could say. But that’s all it was. There’s no warning there. They didn’t say ‘we’re already collecting documentation to Charge you’ while that letter was being written.’

Summary of the preceding points. These features of harassment could, to a casual observer, merely reflect careful monitoring and supervision by the Drugs and Poisons Unit. However, having apparently had such tight overseeing confirmed by a Court, the observer would expect the overseeing to continue, perhaps even more intensely, having had Court endorsement. I was a marked man. This has not occurred. Surprisingly, the reverse has occurred; demonstrating that the concern of the Unit was not patient-centred, but prescriber-centred. That, having taken the practitioner to a Court conviction, the Unit could virtually relax all overseeing – it’s job had been done ! This is entirely consistent with the proposal that the Officer of the Medical Practitioners Board sought (the) cooperation of the Drugs and Poisons unit to have me brought into the purview of the Board with a conviction; a variation of a version of entrapment. I’ve got a Chart now – a Table rather – of the various patients and the Charges, and there a significant number of flaws, shall we say. I’m not saying that I didn’t - I’m not denying that I erred, in missing to apply for Permits. I’m saying that I was under pressures of a number of types (it would seem) in place, to ensure that I did err.’

‘Charge 1, VN. It would seem that the assessment was only over three weeks. Well, I could question whether that’s too short a time to assess a quantity – daily consumption. VN, Charge 2. The period was there. Now the Permit application, 29/5/2001, seemed to have got ‘lost’ in the Department. VN, Charge 3. Again, the quantity. Well, as far as I can see that’s probably correct.[57]

The Chairman interjects. “Dr Traill, would you just mind breaking for a tic. I just wanted to confer with the other Panel Members about a question. Thank you, Dr Traill, you can proceed. I guess, what we’re wanting to – what would be of great assistance to us really, is why you were prescribing the way you were and your feeling about whether it was unprofessional conduct of a serious or not serious nature. So, that would be of greatest interest to us.[58]

I continue “Well, the Charges don’t really relate to why I’m prescribing them. That deals with their medical condition, which I don’t really want to go into in any great detail, other than that they’re ongoing patients with chronic pain problems of a benign nature, in terms of they’re not malignant. But in the case of one, you could almost call it a malignancy, and it may well kill her in due course, her condition. And I’ll read an affidavit from her, which I have. So we’re dealing with benign chronic pain issues. Now, you know what these are; some of them are like spinal stenosis and sciatica, Crohn’s disease with abscesses and infections (and things). Some have extraordinarily bad migraines, and that one was such, it (sic; try “she”) was actually started on the drug before I even got her. And at the moment I’ve weaned her off all injectables, (virtually all injectables), anyway.’

‘So we’re dealing with chronic pain. Some of them were started on these S8 drugs before they came to me. I haven’t listed those here because they are not relevant -  don’t seem to be immediately relevant to the Charges. But these are patients who - some of them have serious non-medical (sic; try “malignant”) painful conditions and, by virtue of being on reasonably high doses of some of these drugs, are by definition (which you won’t allow me to read) drug dependent, in the sense that, if you stop the medication , they will be returned to having severe pain, and they will have withdrawal symptoms . . . and some of the withdrawal symptoms could be predicted to be fairly severe.’

‘So, we’re dealing with patients where the Department suddenly decides to cut off supply because of a whim of theirs. Is one to cut these patients ‘cold turkey’ and see the pain come back and (then) get withdrawal symptoms, or am I supposed to look after the patients’ interests ? Am I, instead of – well, observing the letter of the law – am I to apply medical professional principles – Hippocratic principles – and look(ing) after the patients ? Now, my view, (as a professional person) – I’m supposed to look after the patient, - not necessarily  – I endeavour to follow the law, but I don’t go out of my way to break it, just to prove a point. To me, to cut a patient ‘cold turkey’ which, I should define, I suppose – ‘to cut suddenly’ is just simply not right, as a professional person looking after a patient . . . . and this has happened on a number of occasions; and, I believe, that it was done deliberately.[59]’’

Mr Gorton interjects; “You were going through these Particulars, I think, a short time ago. You’ve mentioned number three, I think, did you[60] ?”

I respond; “Yes, quantity. Well, I think that might be correct. I’m, not denying that I lapsed – get that quite clear. I’m not saying (that) all that went before the Magistrates’ Court was all a lie, and (that) I should have been found ‘not guilty’ at the Magistrates’ Court – I’m not saying that (at) all. Before the Magistrates’ Court, for many of these things, I did not have Permits, or they were (in) error. I was not going to argue about the Drugs and Poisons Unit, with the policies and professional activities in front of the Magistrate; it seemed a pointless pursuit. (The switch from harassment to non-harassment came with the Magistrates’ Court date – on that date the pattern was yet to be revealed.) I just copped that, and we just pleaded guilty  and got out of the building quickly, which is probably the best way to plead; but, as a result of which, I mean, end up in front of you people. So, I think you need to realize that in assessing – Yes, I did make omissions . . . oversights, but they occurred under considerable pressure inflicted on me by the activities of the Drugs and Poisons Unit which, I submit, was an entrapment, and therefore, it should be dismissed; and therefore my acknowledged errors are of an insignificant or trivial nature. The Drugs and Poisons Unit could nail any busy doctor by doing this – any busy doctor ! Perhaps, one who has very little to do in semi-retirement, like I am now - I mightn’t get caught; but if any busy doctor – they could be nailed, this way. Do you want me to proceed with this Chart ?[61]

Mr Gorton replies (as de facto Chairman)Well, its up to you.[62]

I continue “I’ll proceed. I’ll go through it (the Chart). Now, VN again, Charge 4 and 5. The Permit application of 30/2/2002 is missing. There was a new one on 7/10/2000, so there was an overlap there; so, I don’t know how you deal with an overlap. And the same thing with Charge 5 – exactly the same Permit and, again, an overlap. MJ, whose name was spelt incorrectly, (so we can’t actually identify her) – the Drugs and Poisons (Unit) have had the wrong dose on the Permit. I think they had 30 milligrams of Morphine a month, which was clearly wrong. So, of course, if they went and tallied-up things during that month (or three months, or whatever it was), they are going to find me in error. Well, that’s the main one for her. LC, we’ll jump to Charge 10. There was no permit until March 2001, which is an overlap again. I don’t know how they manage to reconcile overlaps.[63]

Mr Gorton interjectsWhat do you mean by that, ‘overlap’ ?[64]

I continue “Well, their assessment period is from 7 October 2001 to 15 April 2001. What did I say then ? 15 December 2000 to April Fool’s day on (in) 2001. Well, yes, there was no Permit there for a while, but I got a new one on 8 March 2001, so there’s an overlap. They’re counting aberrations at a time when, in fact, I did have a Permit; but they’re basing it on the previous Permit, or absence of a Permit.[65]

Mr Gorton againSo there was an overlap of – what you’re suggesting there – about three weeks or so, was there ?[66]

I reply “Yes. Well, it’s still an overlap.[67](A black & white issue, as understood by lawyers.)

Mr Gorton acknowledgesOK, I understand what you mean by an ‘overlap’ now.[68]

I continue “In other words, they’ve got their figures wrong. I’m not saying (that) I didn’t err some of the time, but it wasn’t as bad as they make me out. That reminds me, I just about got to the stage of defining ‘prescription,’ – but I’ll clarify that. The Drugs and Poisons Unit have applied the term ‘prescription’ to each item of a medication, not each piece of paper. Now, this definition is not what’s in the Macquarie Dictionary: the Macquarie Dictionary talks about a ‘prescription’ (as) apparently being apiece of paper. So, if you write a prescription for five ampoules of Morphine and 12 Proladone (which are standard pack sizes) on a piece of paper, that, is, in my view, and the Macquarie Dictionary’s view, a prescription – one prescription. According to the Drugs and Poisons representations here, that (piece of paper), in fact, represents 17 prescriptions, because it’s five ampoules in the morphine pack and 12 Proladone (suppositories) add(ing) up to 17. So, they have inflated. So, the horrendous–looking number of prescriptions that you see in front of you, has been multiplied-up by a factor of – it could be anywhere above – 17 -  but 17 is a reasonable lower point.[69]

Mr Gorton comments “We accept what you just say about what’s meant by ‘prescription’ but, nevertheless, apart from some periods of overlap here and there, (and) the quantities that have been prescribed, you don’t argue with, or the fact that it might have been outside the Permit period ?[70](Back to the legal black and white view.)

I reply “I accept that I made errors. That’s about all I’m going to say. I don’t accept – this, behind Tab 4 is, in fact, in my opinion, hearsay, and I don’t think it should be accepted in the context: context being that there was an entrapment process underway. And the covering letter has got some four points of error in it. Well, it’s not really a covering letter – it just happens to be in the same folder as behind Tab 4. It’s not clearly relating to – behind what ? – in the pink sheet. So we’ve got an unattributed document of amazing figures, which are undated, unsigned; and I don’t think that’s acceptable as evidence. And the use of the term ‘prescription’ for each item that might be listed on a piece of paper is, in fact, I believe, a falsification – the bias – which should be rejected. Do you want me to press on ?[71]

Mr Gorton replies “Yes[72]

I continue “Now, LC, Charge 11. The application on 27 March 2001 was for 12 months – I’m not quite certain. There was apparently no Permit in place, which means the Department probably lost it, and the previous one from the Department had been six months. So, again, we’re dealing with some trickery going on; out to deceive.’

‘JJ, 12, Charge 12. They gave me – yes, I agree, there was no Permit in place, but the previous Permit had been for two months. When the Department issues only two months for a person with chronic pain conditions, you’re bound to forget, if you’re a normal human being.[73]

Mr Gorton interjects “So, you’re very angry about it and decide to ignore it.[74]

I respond “I didn’t know about it. If I knew about it, I would have done something about it. I deny that allegation. These are oversights. I wasn’t out there to prove a point. It was a busy clinic and I’ve been jacked around by the Drugs and Poisons Department (Unit) and, as you can see from the Charts and all the rest of it, there can be little doubt - in the background – that there was a campaign on. The mere fact that all of the ‘alert’ notices went out – not all – but most of them went out on the one day – that means (that) they were collecting data to prepare a cohort, and that they were already preparing the Charges at that stage.’

‘. . . (Patient) MB. Well, there was no permit in place there. I think the previous had been for six months, and so I had overlooked it. And again on the next one, Charge 14, the Permit application 24/12/2001 seems to have been lost in the Department – the Permit application 23/4/2002 was rejected, and the Permit was from the second of (July), which we’ve got an overlap here, 2002, with the wrong dose on it.

Charge 15, that JO spelt incorrectly. We’re dealing with quantity. Yes, they gave me (an) ‘alert’ notice. I saw her twice more and I put the nippers on her too – they didn’t ask me to get a neurologist’s opinion, I requested her to. I said ‘I’m not going to prescribe any more unless you get a neurological opinion’ and I never saw her again. I did my bit. Nevertheless, I was hit with a Charge about three years later ! I don’t think due process was taken; and what was done was quite unreasonable.’

‘Now, DF, she makes up the bulk of the issues and she’s probably the sickest of all the patients: and where, in fact, her condition, while it’s not, in terms of pathology, regarded as a malignancy, its still a killer. In fact, I thought she was going to die last year. She was in St Vincent’s Hospital, and I didn’t think I was ever going to see her again – she jolly-well nearly did die; and I’ve got an affidavit from her.’

‘Now, Charge 16 again is quantity. The Permit expiry was on the fifth of (April), so there was an overlap there. Charge 17, permit expiry, fifth of (April), an overlap. The 18th (Charge), yes, I may have overlooked a couple there; 18 and 19. Charge 20: there was a quantity when she was ‘crook as,’ and they only gave me a one month Permit. Well, of course – can you maintain a patient on these medications for only one month without a lapsing at the end of it ? Charge 21: again, the assessment was over a three week interval for a relapsing-remitting condition. Well, I don’t know whether you’d regard that as reasonable or not. I would suggest (that) it (was) rather unreasonable. Charge 22 and 23: a Permit application on 18/11/2001 was missing for both of them – lost in the Department.’

‘So that’s a summary. Now of course, most of this information has only been really examined closely . . (in the transcript, what follows is incomprehensible; the following in blue is a suggested reconstruction) . . recently. The issues were not professionally significant at the time of the Court Hearing two years ago; and this (professional significance) didn’t seem to be of any great relevance to start haggling over points like this, in front of the Magistrate. And that’s why I didn’t haggle over it – and kept it simple; and I copped what they dealt out to me and was thankful for that level of cooperation from them.’

‘But at this stage in the piece, we can now go through things far more closely, particularly (since) we’ve got the two years lapsing between the Court Hearing and currently; and we can see quite clearly the behaviour of the Drugs and Poisons Unit, which is quite illogical  with (respect to) the concept about looking after patients.’

‘Now, with regard to the particulars and Charges, the Charges and Particulars presented to the Magistrate on 18/3/2004, were not contested. I’m repeating myself here. The Court did not seem the right place to argue issues relating to medical dilemmas. The Magistrate was satisfied that the breaches occurred through oversights, lapses and unintentional omissions. I’m told to repeat that. The Magistrate, while satisfied . . . . . .[75]

Mr Gorton interjectsWell, don’t, because we don’t know – we’re not interested in what the Magistrate thought. What he did in the end, after hearing such material as put before him, is recorded; and what was in his mind, we don’t know, and it’s got no interest to us.[76]

I respond “Well, it can be inferred by the outcome anyway.[77]

Mr Gorton replies “Well, we’ve made that point already, so again . . . .[78]

I continue “The patient base was relatively stable and ongoing, with patients having documented disease, to account for severe chronic pain and, in many cases, second or more consultant opinions to provide back-up. The patients were not roving, feral drug addicts from all over the state. The issues related to black and white issues as far as the law was concerned, and as seen at the time. I’ll repeat that – and as seen at the time. It’s the wisdom of hindsight we have now.’

‘At that time, there had not been demonstrated a change, which came over the conduct of the Drugs and Poisons Unit after the Court Hearing. There had not been detected perversions when (sic; try “by”) the Officer of the Medical Practitioners Board, at that stage, see earlier. The documentation obtained under Freedom of Information had not been obtained in (sic; try “including”) the circumstances of close scrutiny of the documentation; it did not seem warranted at the time – that’s 2004.’

‘This situation has now changed. Again, there is little point arguing whether there were breaches of the law. They occurred, and I admit it. What I wish to present at this Hearing, is that the breaches in law were, with regard to professional medical practice, of a minor or negligible nature which, in context, should be dismissed and not considered to be of an unprofessional nature. That a professional person has oversights in clerical dealings with a government agency applying harassment, should not necessarily impact or reflect upon that person’s ability to perform responsible professional activities.’

‘I have presented earlier, documentation to support the proposal that there was an entrapment campaign. More documentation to support this will follow. There are concerns over the procedural fairness, the ‘alert’ notices issued by the Drugs and Poisons Unit in all bar one patient, followed on from the commencement of the monitoring and assessment period, providing lapses in procedural fairness.’

‘In the case of JO, after receiving the ‘alert’ notice, she was seen twice more. Corrective action was taken, yet some three years later, the Charges were laid. This does not seem compatible with procedural fairness. There were cases where the transcription of the doses on the Permits was in error. I’m basically summarizing what’s on the Table. MJ, MB. Some of the assessment intervals were short, thereby (the) subject for sampling errors; problems due to relapses within a relapsing-remitting condition, which is DF between 8/8/2001 to 7/9/2001, 14/8/2001, 7/9/2001, were all excessive and unreasonable zeal on the Department’s behalf.’

‘Some assessment periods followed unilateral cancellation, by the Drugs and Poisons Unit, of the Permit application. See earlier. Some assessment periods overlapped Permit changes. A number of Permit applications seem to have been lost within the Drugs and Poisons Unit. This is difficult to prove. I allege this. The Department has not proved anything, (or) provided any evidence to prove that they were not lost. Some of the originals are retained, and the inks on the original applications could be tested and matched with the clinical notes at the time. The Unit Officer, to whom I spoke on 4/10/2002, confirmed that there had been a problem with telephone facsimile transmissions, and that, as a result, the Unit protocols had been changed. The impression gained during the relevant times was that this was a significant problem. There were other deficiencies found in the documentation obtained under Freedom of Information. There were no ‘alert’ notices – I think we mean no ‘warning’ notices - produced. There were no ‘warning’ notices produced. There were only the ‘alert’ notices. So, I never really got a warning that I was now being, you know, on the list, (sort of thing). So, there’s a typographical error there.’

‘There were other deficiencies found in the documentation found under Freedom of information. I won’t read that – I’ve read it again. The Officers of the Drugs and Poisons unit provided harassment, unreasonable and excessive demands and directives, thereby effectively becoming employers. I attempted to cope with these as best I could under the circumstances, which included concurrently being busy with other patients. There is no claim that any patient suffered ill effects or damage as a result of the oversights. Rather, their medical requirements were catered-for and looked after, even at the risk of punitive action. The interests of my patients were put first. There have been no complaints by patients.’

‘Now, I address the summary of the Charges - that’s behind Tab 4. Whilst I would consider this document (to be) of very little standing, hearsay standing, which shouldn’t be accepted, I will address the points nevertheless. It talks – he or she – we don’t even know the gender, but the unknown author notes the need for the Permit system, in order to stop multiple doctors being involved, or doctor-shopping. There is no mention of restricting levels of daily dose. This letter, then, would seem to be considered of considerably lesser importance, which seems logical. What I’m saying is, the errors here, my omissions and the like, which involve oversight, in terms of the daily dose are of - in my belief and, apparently in the writer’s belief, -  are of lesser importance. I believe the more important aspect is to register the patients to prevent doctor-shopping. That’s to stop the patient doing a circuit of – stop the patient doing a circuit of doctors through the suburbs; and I think that’s the more important. So, in assessing my oversights, I also note that where there are oversights in relation to the daily dosage, that should be given a lesser weight, because it’s omitted from the Summary of Charges by this unknown author.’

‘More than one prescription on the same day. Here the author is applying the defined meaning of this – on this occasion, he is actually applying the ‘prescription’ apparently correctly, as one sheet of paper. The author seems to be lacking in experience in the medical practice of prescribing. If one has a patient who needs one prescription per day, and has limited mobility, and wants to obtain prescriptions under the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the patient will try, reasonably, to pick up several days’ supply on one day: they don’t have to go to a chemist every day. There are two ways that this can be done :

          i            The doctor can write both prescriptions with the date of the consultation on each. So, if it’s the 10th of the month, both prescriptions have 10th of the month written on it (sic; try “them”) or,

        ii            The doctor can write one prescription with the day following the consultation, in other words, forward date, and the next prescription one further day ahead, for a date two days ahead.

With the first option, each pharmacist is limited to one prescription of the narcotic medication per attendance, meaning that the patient has to visit another pharmacist with the second prescription, in order to pick-up both on the same day.’

‘This is not ‘pharmacist-shopping,’ because it is a practical necessity, if prescriptions are written that way. When the Drugs and Poisons Unit started insisting with (sic; try “that”) the patients visit one pharmacist, this form of prescription-writing had to cease; with a change to method number two (above). With (number) two, the doctor is forward-dating, which the pharmacist can handle, but the doctor is not dating the prescription with the date on which it was written.’

‘The Unit forced the change to the latter method. There was no other option. By making an issue of the dual pharmacist, the unknown author demonstrated a lack of practical understanding of prescription-writing for these medications. I am unaware of any guidelines on this problem, from a medical representative body. I felt hesitant about forward-dating, but I can’t see there’s any alternative.’

‘ In the same paragraph, the author claims that the defendant continued to prescribe in contravention of s.35, even after he had been interviewed over those offences on 17/10/2002. (See the earlier comment about patient DF being made a special case for a set-up, and notes on VN later.) There is reference to Charges, and they are: Charge 4, Mr VN had a permit in place from 7/10/2002 onwards, and there is not clear – no later charge. Why this should be considered a contravention is not clear. Charge 5; as for Charge 4. Charge 22, Permit applications on 18/11/2001 for 12 months and 31/3/2001, an open interval. I actually hadn’t put the date on it – an oversight. Things seemed to have been mislaid in the Drugs and Poisons Unit. Charge 23; as for Charge 22. The claimed contraventions are either not clear or due to a lapse in the Drugs and Poisons unit. Lapses occurred due to oversights when, under the harassment for entrapment; and see earlier.’

‘Variation. I did apply for variation of Permits. Sometimes the applications were rejected, sometimes they were lost, and sometimes they (the Unit) responded by saying ‘we want a consultant’s opinion.’’

‘Supervision. In that way, the Department is able’ – I’m quoting from the document – ‘in that way, the Department is able to supervise the administration of these drugs.I would have thought that it is the medical practitioner who supervises the administration of these drugs. The Department records, documents and monitors the administrations. The supervision version would seem inconsistent with their apparent perceived rôle as employers. The explanation that I gave, that the lapses occurred by oversight, was simplistic. We now know that there was an entrapment campaign in operation, which ceased, as far as the Drugs and Poisons Unit was concerned, with the Court Hearing and conviction. The campaign, as revealed by the affidavit of Ms DF, has still been very active until recently at least, with the secret business of the office of the Medical Practitioners Board;  which should go before the VCAT, and should involve the police.’

Concluding remarks – it’s not entirely concluding – I’ve forgotten the affidavit from Ms DF, which I’d like to read, which I think is relevant. The concluding remarks of the remaining submission: The evidence acquired by the Drugs and Poisons Unit was obtained by a campaign of entrapment. Such a campaign is consistent with the conduct of groups associated with the illegal activities presented in Mal’s Musings, which will be included in your documents. The Office of the Medical Practitioners Board is one such group.’

‘The assistance of the Office of the Drugs and Poisons unit was, in all probability, sought and obtained by the Office of the Medical Practitioners board. Named Officers include, in the Office of the medical Practitioners Board, Mr Smith, Ms Broberg and Ms Lethlean. Officers in the Drugs and Poisons Unit; Mr Moyle, Mr McCormack, Mr Cole, Mr Falk (sic) and Mr Foshier. Whilst, in Australian law, entrapment is not illegal, its use is very questionable, and only reserved for criminal cases. Its place, in obtaining convictions under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, must be a gross and grievous abuse of power and inappropriate allocation of tax payers’ funds.’

‘In the circumstances, the lapses and oversights found, in forming the basis for the Court Hearing in 2004, were of a trivial and inconsequential nature, with respect to professional conduct; and the Charges of unprofessional conduct should be dropped, because they arose through an unconscionable campaign of entrapment conducted by the Officers of the Drugs and Poisons Unit. There are other submissions, but I’ll read the – if I may – read the affidavit from Ms DF. Can I ?[79]

Mr Gorton responds (as a Chairman)Is it a long one ?[80]

I reply “A couple of pages.[81]

Mr Gorton continues his adopted rôleWhat relevance does it have ?[82]

I note “She is one of the patients.[83]

Mr Gorton again “Yes; and what relevance is that to us ?[84]

I reply “Well, she was given Permits, and it gives some idea of the type of condition she had, by her own admission, and the sort of situation I was dealing with. I think it’s relevant.[85]

Mr Gorton continues “She’s a patient for whom it’s alleged you prescribed . . .[86]

I add “She’s DF. Yes.[87]

Mr Gorton continues “. . . beyond the limits of the Permit ?[88]

I answer “There are seven Charges that relate to her.[89]

Mr Gorton worries it “. . And in excess quantities permitted; is that the allegation ?[90]

I answer “Yes.[91]

Mr Gorton countered “Well, you’ve pleaded guilty of that.[92]

I explain “I know I’ve pleaded guilty, and I’ve told you a number of times, I pleaded guilty. That’s not a question here. I pleaded guilty; - because there was a campaign of entrapment and I want to give you the circumstances and her information – her affidavit – it gives you an insight of the problems confronted by patients. I would have thought that’s relevant.[93]

Mr Gorton (as de facto Chairman) Just pardon me. The consensus in the Panel, Dr Traill, is that the Panel is quite prepared to accept that a patient may very well be distressed, unhappy, or whatever adjective you care to put to it, if she is suddenly denied, or is suddenly denied medication. It’s not going to assist us to have a patient tell us that by was of an affidavit.[94]

I answer “That’s not – you haven’t heard the affidavit, and you’re guessing what’s in it. You’re pre-judging this – you’re prejudicial.[95]

Mr Gorton asks (as a lawyer/Chairman) In what way does it address your failure to comply with the Act ?[96]

I explain “Because it shows that there has been an entrapment campaign.[97]

Mr Gorton attacks “Well, she says that does she ?[98]

I explain “She doesn’t say that. It’s not her job to make a legal opinion like that. But she gives an account of things which, anyone with half a brain could realize, is an entrapment campaign.[99]

Mr Gorton deflecting “I see. Well, perhaps, if you could just tender it to us without reading it ?[100](He seemed to be pressing for time. If he knew that DF was to be made a special “set-up” case later, his objections and obstruction may be consistent with his trying to prevent a presentation using her Affidavit; perhaps it could jeopardize a subsequent Board prosecution on the grounds of double jeopardy.)

I compromise “Perhaps I could read a paragraph or two then ?[101]

Mr Gorton permits this, without consulting the PanelA couple of paragraphs, then.[102](But with irritation.)

I looked at the clock behind me and asked “I’m sorry, but is there a hurry to get away for lunch ?[103]

Mr Gorton (as de facto Chairman on behalf of the Panel)No. But we prefer to deal with matters that are relevant to these allegations, rather than (hearing) sweeping allegations against Board Members, the administrative section of the Board, the Department – just dealing with these particular admitted transgressions of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, and whether they should be regarded as serious or not serious, or whether you should be found not to have committed any professional misconduct at all.[104](He is back to the black and white issues, ignoring the greys.)

I proceed “Well, as I said, I’m not denying that the imperfections occurred. I believe that in (at) a professional level they are of a relatively minor significance and . . . .[105]

Mr Gorton interjects “The things that are relevant, that you’ve told us about, are that you, it seems to me, it’s not speaking for other members of the Panel, that you had a very busy practice; it’s not always possible to be aware that a Permit has expired, but these events, from time to time, but where they have occurred, and prescriptions continued to be given for very long periods of time after the Permit has expired. That becomes a different issue.[106](Much of the affidavit could have been read by now !)

I respond “Well, I would dispute that they would be particularly long periods of time, for these particular patients, because they’re on long-term treatment anyway, and I knew them well. With your permission, I might read a paragraph or two, which is Paragraph 15. This is from her affidavit; she was in St Vincent’s Hospital – ‘Prior to the discharge before the last admission . . .(reads*) . . . written by Dr Traill. He was giving directions,’ that’s the doctor in the hospital. ‘The doctor in the hospital was giving directions, including . . . (reads*) . . .  ‘On the day of discharge I saw. .’ – that’s irrelevant. ‘I made an appointment to see Dr Nettleton – it was a midnight . . . (reads*) . . .of the medical Board, as I instructed them.’ So, that’s a continuing campaign up until the very recent times, and there are the exhibits here for (it). This has got nothing to do with their doses really, and their effects of withdrawal. It’s to do with just sleazy trickiness – sleazy, and it (shows) just how bad things have become. I think I have completed my submission. Thank you very much.[107]* The “. . (reads) . .” were inserted by the transcription service – a censorship (see earlier comments about DF and a set-up, as documented in A BASE BOARD). Most of what was read was not transcribed – of particular significance – see later.

The Chairman speaks (at last) “Thank you, Dr Traill.[108]

Mr O’Neill then speaks. He clarified the conviction and 8 week Permit interval matters and tenders EXHIBIT A – the Book of Evidence. He then goes on to quote and interpret the laws and quotes from a dictionary on the meaning of “serious.” He looks at Ms DF’s documentation and counted “. . 470 prescriptions made in respect of this patient beyond the Permit period.[109]

I asked “Can you define prescriptions there ?[110]

Mr O’Neill “I’m not certain I understand Dr Traill’s definitions of prescriptions but, at least, on the face of the document, it would seem that on each of the days set forth in that long list, there was a prescription for . . .[111]

Mr Gorton interjects “Quite a number of them are doubled-up, though. I don’t know whether they’re counted as single or double; or if one traces through – if you look at 27/10/2001, there were three on that date – of Morphine.[112]

Mr O’Neill continues “Well, at the very beginning, there’s actually four on one date, and I simply couldn’t believe that there would be four prescriptions on the one date. I must say, it seems to me, there must be a doubling-up.[113]

Mr Gorton continues “In any event, whether it’s 470 or whatever, the amount prescribed beyond the quantity in milligrams, is described there at the end.[114]

Mr O’Neill responds “Yes, yes. It seems the most infraction, and this is the one where it would seem to be over the greatest period, and the greatest amount; but it’s a very substantial period of 14 months or so – 15 months where there’s no Permit, and for a significant quantity of highly addictive drug. I want to take the Panel to the second last page of the list, where the date at the top of the page is 25/9/2002. It’s Charge 22; it’s the sixth – sorry, seventh page of those Charges, and the second last one.[115]

Mr Gorton (for the panel)Yes, yes.[116]

Mr O’Neill continues “And the date at the top of the page is 25/8/2002. If you go about halfway down, there’s a gap on 17/10/2002, and it says, ‘Date of Interview.’ I bring that to the Panel’s attention because, on that date, Dr Traill was interviewed by Officers of the Department of Human Services in respect of these Charges (to be), specifically, in respect of these Charges.[117](That Charges were planned, was not canvassed at the time, with me.)

Mr Gorton asks “What evidence do we have for that, Mr O’Neill ?[118]

Mr O’Neill answers “Well, the evidence is what’s said there, ‘Date of Interview,’ and I have the interview.[119]

Mr Gorton continues “There was a reference made in the book somewhere to a record of interview. Is that what you’re talking about ?[120]

Mr O’Neill answers “Yes, I am.[121]

Mr Gorton comments “I wondered why that wasn’t in the book.[122]

Mr O’Neill elaborates “Yes, well, perhaps it’s an oversight. I must say I wasn’t alerted to it until I saw that date of interview there. I will tender it if – I don’t know whether Dr Traill has objection or not. It’s an interview specifically on (before) these Charges. The evidence of it in the court Book is simply what’s said, that encryption there.[123]

Mr Gorton asks “Well, perhaps just, I will ask Dr Traill. You will see there’s a suggestion there, on 17/10/2002, there was an interview with you, which was conducted by somebody from the Department and recorded. Do you agree with that ?[124]

I respond “I agree that there was an interview. They certainly didn’t make it clear that they were preparing, or had prepared documents to lay Charges.[125]

Mr Gorton pondersNo, No.[126]

I continue “And they had an interview with me, and as I pointed out in my analysis of things, there was a Permit for DF applied-for on the 18th of whatever month it was, and that was lost in the Department*; so that’s about all I can say on what that is – 18/11/2001 (sic; try “2002”) Burwood (sic; try “before her”) application went missing.[127]*For the current Hearing, and if DF was being set-up for another prosecution [see A BASE BOARD], “proof” of lapsing after the Interview of 17/10/2002 would be essential. The only way for the Drugs & Poisons Unit to guarantee that there would be a “lapse” would be by “losing” the application – and that is what happened !

Mr Gorton presses “Well, do you agree that the interview concerned the prescription by you, of Schedule 8 drugs, beyond permit periods, or in excess quantities ?[128]

I answer “The thrust of the interview was that I was treating drug addicts. That was the thrust of the interview. No, they didn’t really – they might have said there were some lapses and things, and (as) I was saying, well – but the major allegation seemed to be that I was supplying drugs to drug addicts; and I deny that.[129]

Mr Gorton continues “That’s not part of what the allegations here are. Would you prefer it if we had the record of interview ourselves, so we can see exactly what was said ?[130]

I respond “No, I don’t think it should be put in, but I accept that there was an interview, but the thrust of it was that they were accusing me of supplying drug addicts, and my recollection is that they were not giving me a warning, with respect to - so much, as the quantities and lengths of intervals were concerned, but rather, why was I treating these people, who are, really, basically, drug addicts. That was what they were trying to say.[131]

Mr Gorton probesNevertheless, the prescription quantities and the periods was mentioned during that interview.[132](Presented in transcript as a statement.)

I respond “Probably – and I said, (and that’s recorded), and it’s quoted, and I agree with it – they were oversights. They were in the nature of oversights, and I don’t think that document is really relevant, other than, if you want to read a document (on) how the Department was trying to push the line, which I deny, and I think was part of the entrapment program, that I was supplying drug addicts; and I deny that, and nobody has since pursued the line that they were drug addicts. They all had supporting evidence - or virtually all – supporting evidence from consultants, and the drug addict line is irrelevant; and that’s what’s in that document.[133]

Mr Gorton resolves  “Yes, and I think, Mr O’Neill, we’ll assume, and accept, that there was some discussion about the Permit excesses during that discussion, whatever might have been discussed.[134]

Mr O’Neill affirms “Yes, certainly.[135]

Mr Gorton continues “So, there will be no need to tender it.[136]

Mr O’Neill “Thank you. I raised it simply to indicate that Dr Traill was aware of the investigation, and the query of this, and in the prescriptions, although not a lot after that date.[137]”  (I did not perceive it as an “investigation,” I perceived it as a pep-talk.)

I interrupt “Excuse me, could you name (and) list them ?[138]

Mr O’Neill relies “Well, the prescriptions are . . . .[139]

Mr Gorton interjects “The prescriptions after that (sic; try “what”) ?[140]

Mr O’Neill answers “After the date of interview.[141]

Mr Gorton explains “Well, that was on 17th of October, and in relation to this patient, what’s her name ?[142]

Mr O’Neill replies “DF[143]

Mr Gorton continues “F, prescriptions continued from 18 October to 12 December without a Permit.[144]

Mr O’Neill affirms “Yes[145]

Mr Gorton adds “So that’s just one example of a fair period after that interview.[146]

Mr O’Neill clarifies “There’s only one other patient. There’s only one other Charge in which there was the interview, and then prescription afterwards, and that’s in respect of the same patient, F, and the same period, but just in relation to the drug Oxycodone. So, it’s probably really one, in a sense.[147]

Mr Gorton pursues “And it only relates to F then, does it, not the other . . . .[148]

Mr O’Neill answers “Yes, no other patient, and no other drug. So, in summary, in my respectful submission, prescription beyond the Permit period is extensive, and the quantity prescribed outside the Permit is extensive, as well; and, for that relatively brief instance, there was continued prescription after an interview by the Officers. Dr Traill says that these matters are matters of inadvertence, lapses and oversights; that they’re of a trivial and inconsequential nature. In my submission, they’re none of those things, and they do constitute conduct of a serious nature, in my submission.[149](No mention of entrapment.)

Mr Gorton asks “There’s no suggestion made at any stage, Mr O’Neill, that any of Dr Traill’s patients were damaged or harmed by the allegations here ?[150]

Mr O’Neill replies “No, no suggestion; no.[151]

Mr Gorton asks “So, the thrust of the allegations is more that the Drugs, poisons and Controlled Substances Act provisions are extremely important in the community ?[152]

Mr O’Neill answers “Yes, exactly that. They’re serious drugs as the Panel would know, and there is the risk or the prospect that these people would seek the same prescriptions from others. I don’t suggest that’s happened in this instance, we know of nothing of this. I’m just reminded that, in respect of the patient N who is, I think, the first of the patients who was concerned with Charge 1 to 5, these was some prescription after the date of the interview; some relatively small number of prescriptions in respect of that patient, after the date of interview.[153]

Mr Gorton adds “That’s about 12 or so.[154]

Mr O’Neill affirms “Yes.[155]

I interrupt “Excuse me, I did make an explanation for that in my presentation.*[156](Ignored. According to the information obtained under FoI, I applied for a 12 months Permit on 4/10/2002. On 7/10/2002 a Permit was granted to 6/4/2003, an interval of some 6 months. The alleged non-compliance just before and after the “Date of Interview” date [17/10/2002] in Charge 4 was in error, and to my disadvantage, being considered “proof” that the lapses were, in fact, deliberate.)

Mr O’Neill changes course (perhaps he knew of the error)Would the Panel pardon me a moment ? They’re the only submissions I have in respect of the matter. In the event that the Panel finds the Charges proven, I would have something to say about penalty, but I take it that it would be appropriate to do that at a later time.[157]

The Chairman speaks “We will adjourn for about 15 minutes or so to consider submissions and recommence then.[158](No polite request, such as “Dr Traill, is there anything you would like to add or submit.” Also, there was no indication as to the stage that the Hearing had reached and what was to follow. They just all promptly and briskly stood up and  filed out ! – a deliberate escape ?)

SECOND RECESS

On return, the Chairman announces that the Panel had come to a decision with respect to the Finding - finding that I had engaged in unprofessional conduct of a serious nature: “So, we’d like to hear submissions with regard to determination, Mr O’Neill.[159]

I interject “Excuse me, if I may make a comment here – the letter from the Medical Board, which I tendered in my documents, which I can give you – because I haven’t handed over this document, (there’s a folder for you people), which was written on 6th March, which saysWhilst the Board is not prepared to delay or defer . . . (reads*) . . .after the outcome of the VCAT review is known.’[160]”       *Transcription censorship, see earlier

Mr Gorton (as de facto Chairman)Perhaps, Mr O’Neill, are you familiar or have you got any instructions about that ?[161]

Mr O’Neill, unprepared “I’m not familiar with the letter, and I don’t have instructions. Would the Panel pardon me a moment ?[162]

Chairman replies “Yes, sure.[163]

I ask “Can I tender these documents ? – EXHIBIT 1 – Bundle of documents:  One for the Panel and one for the lawyers.[164]” (Because of the Panel’s speedy exit in order to make, [what they later announced], the finding, I was left holding the bound documents for my written submission, to which there had been numerous references during my oral presentation. My adverse experience with the Minter Ellison way of doing things inspired me to have everything, including the letter from the Board, bound in a single volume. In that way all had to be accepted ! – and so, my written submission was tendered AFTER the Finding was announced !

Mr O’Neill asks “I wonder if Dr Traill might be able to provide me with a copy of that letter ?[165]

I assist “It’s coming your way.[166]

Mr O’Neill says “Thank you.[167]

I assist “It’s in the back of . . . it’s called ‘Exhibit MAT1/1.’ It’s behind my letter and it’s . .[168]

Mr O’Neill says “I do have it. I wonder if the Panel would pardon me for a moment – if I could just address it ?[169]

Chairman agrees “Sure[170]

Mr Gorton asks “Does it have a page number on it, Mr O’Neill ?[171]

Mr O’Neill replies “No, Mr Gorton. It’s about a quarter of the way in. It’s immediately after a first pink divider.[172]

Mr Gorton notes “Yes, dated 6th of March 2006.[173]

Mr O’Neill affirms “That’s it.[174]

Mr Gorton comments (as de facto Chairman)Yes. Dr Traill, you’ve hoisted on your petard, a little bit; and it’s signed by Ms Broberg on behalf of Mr Smith, and earlier you said that that constitutes no . . . but don’t worry about . . . that’s just an interesting little . . . its very clear, isn’t it, Mr O’Neill ?[175]

Mr O’Neill agrees “It is, Sir, yes. I don’t know if I can really say a great deal about it. It’s clear that’s what the Medical Board have (sic) said. I think it’s really a matter for the Panel.[176]

Mr Gorton continues “Well, they would be your instructions to us. Your instructions to submit to us, that we shouldn’t make any, so it would appear . . .[177]

Mr O’Neill floundersI haven’t sought any instruction on this point since being made aware of this, I might say . . .[178]

Mr Gorton looks to the masterI don’t think Mr Smith is here today, is that right ?[179]

Mr O’Neill replies “No, he’s not. I just wondered, I’m sorry to ask this, but I wondered if the Panel might give me five or ten minutes ? I really had better seek some instructions on this. I’m sorry to delay the Hearing.[180]

Mr Gorton leads (as Chairman)Yes. I think, Dr Traill, you’ve certainly come here today with that letter in mind, haven’t you ?[181]

I reply “Well, it gave the date of the Hearing, so that’s why I’m here.[182]

Mr Gorton continues leading “Yes, not expecting to have any final determination made against you today, no matter what the outcome of the Hearing was ?[183]

I respond “Well, as I tried to tell you earlier, this matter is going to be talked about at (the) VCAT, and I still believe this Hearing should not have proceeded.[184]

Mr Gorton commandsYes, we note that, and we don’t agree with that, but it’s the undertaking . . . what appears in the letter . . . probably should be given some credence, do you think, Mr O’Neill ?[185](Decision-making was difficult without Mr Smith for direction !)

Mr O’Neill concurs “I think so; it’s a very clear statement. I just wondered if I might seek just two or three minutes, to get some instructions on that.[186](Still indecision)

Chairman agrees to the break “Sure. We will adjourn for five minutes.[187]

THIRD RECESS

Chairman speaks “Mr O’Neill[188]

Mr O’Neill, with guidanceThank you Doctor. I’m sorry about the delay. I have sought instructions and, given the very clear indication contained in the letter, if Dr Traill’s preferred course of action is to await the determination of his matters before (the) VCAT next month; or however long after that it takes the judgement to be delivered, then we accede to that proposition. I would have thought it might be in his interests to not do it that way; then if that’s the way he wants to do it, then, given what’s said in this letter, then we agree with that.[189]

Mr Gorton takes overIt’s what you want to do, isn’t it, Doctor ?[190]

I affirm “Yes, well, I still think that there’s going to be information coming forward from the VCAT inquiry which will be relevant*, and I think that the determination for this Hearing should be deferred until after the VCAT, and I acted – although I questioned the validity of that letter – I acted in good faith, in respect to coming here on the 28th, and I have stuck by that letter.[191]”  *I was wrong !

Mr Gorton winds-up and directsYes, thank you. We will need a date to be adjourned-to or a date to be fixed.[192]

The Chairman obeysYes, we will adjourn the Hearing to a date to be fixed. Thank you.[193]

 

ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED

 

 

Copyright © MA Traill, November 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 
 

 


 

[1] Page 6; (Line) 13-16

[2] P15;23-26

[3] P15;26-31. P16;1-3

[4] P16;4-8

[5] P18;5-10

[6] P18;16-20

[7] P18;24-28

[8] P19;20-23

[9] P19;26-29

[10] P20;17-21

[11] P20;22-30

[12] P20;31. P21;1-5

[13] P21;4-9

[14] P21;10-21

[15] P21;24-5

[16] P22;27-8

[17] P22;29-31

[18] P22;19-20

[19] P22;22-23

[20] P24;2-17

[21] P25;2-3

[22] P25;4-11

[23] P25;12-21

[24] P25;22-31. P26;1-4

[25] P26;5-7

[26] P26;8-10

[27] P26;11-18

[28] P26:19-24

[29] P26;24-25

[30] P26;26-31

[31] P27;1-5

[32] Forbes

[33]P.27;8-26

[34] P.27;27-31. P.28;1-2

[35] P.28;3-5

[36] P.28;6-8

[37] P.28;9-11

[38] P.28;12-14

[39] P.28;15-27

[40] P.28;16-31. P.29;1-7

[41] P.29;8-31. P.30;1-2

[42] P.30;3-5

[43] P.30;6-7

[44] P.30;8

[45] P.30;9-31, P.31;1-31, P.32;1-31, P.33;1-14

[46] P.33;15-17

[47] P.33;18

[48] P.33;19

[49] P.33;20

[50] P.33;21-22

[51] P.33;23-24

[52] P.33;25-26

[53] P.33;27-28

[54] P.33;29

[55] P.33;30

[56] P.33;31

[57] P.34 – 40;1-15

[58] P. 40;16-23

[59] P.40;24 – 42;1-6

[60] P.42;7-9

[61] P. 42;10-3. P.43;1-4

[62] P. 43;5

[63] P. 43;6-23

[64] P. 43;24

[65] P. 43;25-31. P. 44;1

[66] P. 44;2-3

[67] P. 44;4

[68] P. 44;5

[69] P. 44;6-26

[70] P. 44;27-31

[71] P. 45;1-16

[72] P. 45;17

[73] P. 45;18-29

[74] P. 45;30-31

[75] P.46;1-31 – P.48;1-16

[76] P.48;17-21

[77] P.48;22

[78] P.48;23

[79] P.48;24 – P.55;1-28

[80] P.55;29

[81] P.55;30

[82] P.55;31

[83] P.56;1

[84] P.56;2

[85] P.56;3-6

[86] P.56;7-8

[87] P.56;9

[88] P.56;10

[89] P.56;11

[90] P.56;12-13

[91] P.56;14

[92] P.56;15

[93] P.56;16-22

[94] P.56;23-29

[95] P.56;30-31. P.57;1

[96] P.57;2-3

[97] P.57;4-5

[98] P.57;6

[99] P.57;7-10

[100] P.57;11-12

[101] P.57;13

[102] P.57;14

[103] P.57;15-16

[104] P.57;17-25

[105] P.57;26-28

[106] P.57;29-31. P.58;1-5

[107] P.58;6-25

[108] P.58;26

[109] P.58;27-31. P.60;1-23

[110] P.60;24

[111] P.60;25-29

[112] P.60;30-31. P.61;1-2

[113] P.61;3-6

[114] P.61;7-9

[115] P.61;10-19

[116] P.61;20

[117] P.61;21-27

[118] P.61;28

[119] P.61;29-30

[120] P.61;31. P.62;1

[121] P.62;2

[122] P.62;3

[123] P.62;4-9

[124] P.62;10-14

[125] P.62;15-17

[126] P.62:18

[127] P.62;19-24

[128] P.62;25-27

[129] P.62;28-31. P.63;1-2

[130] P.63;3-5

[131] P.63;6-13

[132] P.63;14-15

[133] P.63;16-27

[134] P.63;28-31

[135] P.64;1

[136] P.64;2

[137] P.64;3-6

[138] P.64;7

[139] P.64;8

[140] P.64;9

[141] P.64;10

[142] P.64;11-12

[143] P.64;13

[144] P.64;14-15

[145] P.64;16

[146] P.64;17-18

[147] P.64;19-24

[148] P.64;25-26

[149] P.64;27-31. P.65;1-6

[150] P.65;7-9

[151] P.65;10

[152] P.65;11-13

[153] P.65;14-23

[154] P.65;24

[155] P.65;25

[156] P.65;26-27

[157] P.65;28-31. P.66;1

[158] P.66;2-3

[159] P.66;5-12

[160] P.66;13-19

[161] P.66;20-21

[162] P.66;22-23

[163] P.66;24

[164] P.66;25-28

[165] P.66;29-30

[166] P.66;31

[167] P.66;32

[168] P.67;1-2

[169] P.67;3-4

[170] P.67;5

[171] P.67;6

[172] P.67;7-8

[173] P.67;9

[174] P.67;10

[175] P.67;11-15

[176] P.67;16-19

[177] P.67;20-22

[178] P.67;23-24

[179] P.67;25-26

[180] P.67;27-30

[181] P.67;31. P.68;1

[182] P.68;2-3

[183] P.68;4-6

[184] P.68;7-9

[185] P.68;10-12

[186] P.68;13-14

[187] P.68;16

[188] P.68;18

[189] P.68;19-28

[190] P.68;29

[191] P.68;30-31. P.69;1-5

[192] P.69;6

[193] P.69;9-10