Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
APPENDIX 10 - DENIAL OF LEGAL AID: DECISION AFFIRMED
LETTER FROM LEGAL AID AND FAMILY SERVICES, ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT TO RENNICK BRIGGS, DATED 4 OCTOBER 1996
LEGAL AID AND FAMILY SERVICES
4 October 1996
Mr S Millard
Rennick Gaynor Kiddle Briggs
DX 179 MELBOURNE
Dear Mr Millard
re: APQ v Commonwealth and CSL
I refer to your letter of 25 January 1996 requesting a review
of the decision not to approve assistance under the Special Circumstances
Scheme to your client, APQ. I have also noted your further correspondence
of 23 September 1996 as this relates to the Special Circumstances Scheme.
I apologise for the delay in attending to your earlier correspondence.
After reviewing the matter I have decided to affirm the original
decision and refuse assistance to APQ.
Paragraph (d) of the guidelines to the Special Circumstances
Scheme is relevant to the application by APQ. This paragraph requires
that I consider whether there are special circumstances which lead to
the conclusion that there is a moral obligation on the Commonwealth to
make a payment of financial assistance for legal action. The guidelines
do not restrict the matters that are to be taken into account.
The findings of the Allars report and the decision of Justice
Morland in the English High Court CJD litigation offer support for the
view that there may be a moral obligation to compensate for injuries suffered
as a result of the hormone treatment program.
The Commonwealth has provided compensation in all cases where
CJD has developed and $5m for counselling support has been made available
by the Commonwealth for all those who participated in the hormone treatment
programs. Quite clearly, there is a demonstrated intention on the part
of the Commonwealth to assist those who do become afflicted with CJD and
to help all who were part of the hormone treatment program. APQ's claim
is for additional recompense. I do not believe that an obligation exists
in the circumstances to assist her in that claim.
I also consider that the legal issues to be raised in the
case fall outside the currently applied principles of law on negligence
in Australia. In all the circumstances I do not consider that there is
an obligation on the Commonwealth to provide assistance to test the law.
The estimated cost of the hearing alone is well in excess
of funds available from moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purposes
of providing financial assistance and in excess of any possible benefit
that might accrue to APQ.
Having regard to these matters I have formed the opinion that
the circumstances of this case do not lead to the conclusion that there
is a moral obligation on the Commonwealth to make a payment for APQ's
legal costs.
Yours sincerely
Dr Margaret Browne
First Assistant Secretary
Legal Aid and Family Services
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page