Carl Williams’ family sues the State of Victoria over drug kingpin’s brutal prison death

Carl Williams family sue for more than $1m in compensation claim (Source: Herald Sun)

Carl Williams family sue for more than $1m in compensation claim (Source: Herald Sun)

The family of murdered gangland boss Carl Williams have launched legal action over his death.

His father George, daughter Dhakota and ex-wife Roberta are suing the State of Victoria as the operators of the jail where Williams died in 2010.

Williams was bashed to death by another inmate, Matthew Charles Johnson, in the top-security Acacia unit at Barwon Prison.

In a writ lodged in the Supreme Court yesterday, members of the Williams family allege prison management failed in its duty to protect him.

They claim the prison failed to properly monitor CCTV of Williams’ unit, or keep potentially deadly items from Johnson’s reach.

They claim Victoria Police had sought Williams’ cooperation on an investigation and agreed to “financial benefits” for his family.

The chilling moment Carl Williams’ killer Matt Johnson approached him with an exercise bike post.

Those included George Williams’ tax bill of $574,297 and Dhakota’s school fees, the writ alleges.

His death deprived them from those benefits and left them with lasting psychological injuries, they claim.

At all material times, the First Defendant’s (State of Victoria’s) servants or agents … knew or ought to have known of Carl Williams’ Police cooperation” the writ states.

The family of Melbourne gangster Carl Williams is suing Victoria’s prison system for a million dollars.

The writ alleges authorities should not have placed Williams with Johnson and knew, or ought to have known that:

  • whilst incarcerated at the prison, Johnson was a member of the Prisoners of War gang (“the POW gang”);
  • the POW gang were responsible for assaults on prisoners who had cooperated with police investigations;
  •  Johnson had previously participated in a serious assault on a prisoner at the prison who had cooperated with police investigations;
  • Johnson had previously used the seat of an exercise bike during an assault on another prisoner at the prison;
  • Johnson had a correctional history of 76 separate incidents including multiple assaults on prisoners and prison staff.

The writ states that after Williams requested a move into the same unit as Johnson, Penny Armytage, Secretary to the Department of Justice and Rod Wise, the Acting Commissioner of Corrections Victoria, were consulted.

Mr Wise emailed Ms Armytage that “there is little doubt that Johnson is capable of causing Williams harm”.

Wise stated Johnson could harm Carl Williams for financial incentives, an opportunity to enhance his reputation at the Prison and the fact of any further sentence following a charge running concurrently” the writ claims.

But both supported the move.

The Williams family alleges that the State of Victoria was negligent in that it did not carry out any risk assessment of the potential harm Johnson posed to Williams; did not ascertain whether Victoria Police had undertaken a risk assessment; did not properly assess Johnson’s prior conduct, and did not consider and assess the significant risks.

They also allege the prison gave too much weight to concerns Williams would stop cooperating.

The Williams family members are seeking a judge-only trial.

(Source: Anthony Dowsley, Herald Sun, 26 September 2012)

Vic woman, UK firm settle thalidomide case

'Worst child poisoning case since thalidomide'A multimillion dollar compensation payment to a Melbourne woman whose mother took the drug thalidomide during pregnancy will provide her with care for the rest of her life, her lawyers say.

UK company Diageo, which distributed thalidomide, has settled with Lynette Rowe, who was born without arms and legs.

There was no settlement with the drug’s manufacturer Grunenthal.

Ms Rowe remains the lead plaintiff in a class action against Grunenthal as negotiations with more than 100 other thalidomide victims in Australia and New Zealand continue.

Ms Rowe, 50, wept as her father Ian spoke on her behalf.

The things she has achieved are absolutely amazing” he told reporters on Wednesday.

You don’t need arms and legs to change the world.

Ms Rowe’s lawyer Peter Gordon said the settlement was “more than adequate” to compensate Ms Rowe in the future.

She had struck a blow for “thalidomiders” all over the world, he said.

We are really proud of Lynette, we are really proud of her parents Wendy and Ian” he said.

Mr Gordon described thalidomide as “the greatest pharmaceutical disaster in history“.

Thalidomide drugs were distributed in Australia and New Zealand around 1960 and 1961 by Distillers, which became part of Diageo in 1997.

Mr Gordon said executives at Diageo were “good and responsible corporate citizens“, but that Grunenthal had taken a position they deplored.

The drug was withdrawn in Australia in 1961.

(Source: News, 18 July 2012)

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a forensic accountant who has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in both Australia and overseas. He specialises in economic loss and loss of earnings calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.

 

 

 

Can relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq in unarmoured vehicles pursue claims against the Government?

The UK Court of Appeal is currently considering whether relatives of servicemen killed in Iraq can sue the MOD

The following article is reprinted from the BBK Blog in the UK. It describes developments in the UK’s Court of Appeal in relation to military compensation claims for servicemen killed in Iraq.

Three Court of Appeal judges are to make a decision in the next week about whether the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq in unarmoured vehicles can pursue claims against the Government.

Private Phillip Hewett, 21, died in July 2005 when a Snatch Land Rover was blown up. The same accident also killed 2nd Lt Richard Shearer and Private Leon Spicer. Similar explosions also claimed the lives of Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath in August 2007, and Corporal Ivano Violino in September 2007.

The MOD has been accused of being negligent in failing to provide armoured vehicles. The relatives of the servicemen killed are arguing that the provision of armoured vehicles could have saved their lives.

The MOD have said that decisions about battlefield equipment are for politicians and military commanders and cannot be the subject of a negligence action.

It certainly seems a difficult case to argue against; our troops go to war and risk their lives every day; they work under tremendous pressure in extreme conditions. Is it too much to ask that the MOD protect them as far as they possibly can by providing them with sufficiently protected vehicles and armour so that the risks inherently associated with going to war are minimised? There are, of course, always going to be casualties in a war but is it not the MOD’s job to ensure that the number of these casualties is kept as low as possible and that the equipment being given to our troops does not contribute to producing them?

On the other hand, supporters of the MoD’s position will say we are fighting a war, the MOD has updated vehicles when weaknesses have been highlighted, and they have taken vehicles out of commission when they are deemed as too unsafe for our troops to use; we only need to look at the upgraded Snatch Land Rover vehicles for confirmation. Wars are inherently more dangerous now than they have ever been; can the MOD really be expected to cater for every eventuality?

There are perhaps arguments for both sides here but one thing is for certain; if the decision comes back saying that it IS possible to sue the MOD for a failure to provide armoured vehicles this may have far reaching effects on the number of military compensation claims being pursued by injured soldiers, and by relatives of those killed in service.

(Source: Vicki Reid, BBK, 26 June 2012)

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a forensic accountant who has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in both Australia and overseas. He specialises in economic loss and loss of earnings calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.

 

 

 

Bar ordered to pay $889,000 after bouncer injured man

Personal injury claim, Canberra

Civic nightclub Mooseheads has been ordered to pay a Canberra man more than $889,000 after he was seriously injured while being ejected from the club in 2001.

Allan Wormald’s 35th birthday celebrations went sour when a bouncer fell on top of him as he was being kicked out of the bar.

He sued Mooseheads after suffering a fractured femur and a dislocated hip that affected his work and left him with back and hip pain.

In a judgment published yesterday, ACT Supreme Court Justice Anna Katzmann said Mr Wormald would ”never forget his 35th birthday” in November 2001.

The court heard Mr Wormald and his friends had been celebrating the day with drinks at the Belconnen Labor Club before heading to Mooseheads at about 11pm.

Mr Wormald told the court he became angry after one of his friends was asked to leave the club and went over to remonstrate with the bouncer.

The bouncer then told him to get out of the club and Mr Wormald swore at him.

He said the bouncer grabbed his arms and began marching him out of the club at an accelerating pace, causing him to walk straight off a set of steps and fall to the ground.

The bouncer ”rode” him to the ground and fell on top of him. Lawyers for Mooseheads’ owners Caftor argued that Mr Wormald had contributed to his own injuries because he was drunk, aggressive, tried to assault the bouncer and resisted being thrown out.

The bouncer at the heart of the incident, Steve Vosnakes, gave evidence that he went to eject a man who was waving a pool cue around “like a javelin” and who tried to swing a fistful of pool balls at him.

Mr Vosnakes told the court he put the man in a “full Nelson” armlock and made a beeline for the door but the man struggled, causing both of them to fall off a step and onto the ground.

But Mr Wormald and his friends told the court there was no violence, he was calm as he was being ejected and did not resist Mr Vosnakes.

One friend said Mr Wormald was being gripped “like a puppet” and was marched straight off the steps, falling to the ground with the bouncer on top of him.

He was unable to move his legs and had to be helped out of the bar after the incident.

Mr Wormald was taken to hospital by ambulance, had two operations in five weeks, and still suffered pain more than 10 years later.

Justice Katzmann ordered Caftor to pay Mr Wormald a total of $889,419 in damages, expenses and loss of earnings.

(Source: Canberra Times, Natasha Rudra, 27/06/2012)

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a forensic accountant who has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in both Australia and overseas. He specialises in economic loss and loss of earnings calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.

Injured workers wins unfair dismissal claim

Worker wins unfair dismissal claim

Employers are fuming at a decision by Fair Work Australia that will make it easier for injured employees receiving workers’ compensation to claim unfair dismissal.

Injured employees receiving work-related compensation payments can now count the time they spend recovering at home towards meeting their minimum employment period of six to 12 months after injury, during which they are protected from unfair dismissal.

Employer groups railed at the landmark decision by FWA yesterday, warning that it had major implications and the government needed to consider the consequences as part of its review of the Fair Work Act.

In the full bench decision, the industrial umpire rejected an appeal by major labour hire business WorkPac. The company said employee Michael Bambach was ineligible for an unfair dismissal claim because he had failed to meet the relevant period of “continuous service” after he was injured at work.

The Fair Work Act deems the minimum employment period under which protection from unfair dismissal is granted is six months for large employers and 12 months for smaller operators.

After starting work in early March 2010, Mr Bambach was injured and unable to perform his duties from June 2 that year to September 23, 2011, at the Mount Owen mine in the Hunter Valley, more than 14 months.

After he was deemed fit to resume his pre-injury duties, Mr Bambach received notification of the cessation of his employment from WorkPac on October 17, effective from September 24.

The Australian Industry Group noted that unpaid absences were not normally counted towards “continuous service” even when individuals were beneficiaries of other schemes.  Source: Joe Kelly, The Australian, June 01, 2012

Quicklinks

About Rushmore Forensic

Andrew Firth is a forensic accountant who has conducted numerous investigations and other forensic accounting engagements in both Australia and overseas.

He specialises in economic loss calculations, personal injury compensation and other forensic accounting services for commercial disputes.  He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and has appeared as an Expert Witness in numerous jurisdictions.