SA government seeks to overturn RAH doctor Megan Brooks’ immunity for giving evidence in coronial ramping inquiry

This doctor was spared disciplinary action in exchange for her expertise on the state’s ramping crisis – now the government wants her protection abolished.

 

A top doctor has been granted immunity from disciplinary action if she gives evidence about the state’s ramping crisis – but the government says that protection was wrongly conferred.

On Monday, the Supreme Court was asked to overturn a “certificate of privilege” issued, to former RAH emergency department lead Dr Megan Brooks, by the Coroners Court.

State government lawyers said the Coroners Court had acted outside its power by indemnifying Dr Brooks from disciplinary action in exchange for evidence about ramping.

Counsel for Dr Brooks, however, said the protection was warranted – because the government had told their client it feared she would “attempt to embarrass the state without notice”.

Dr Megan Brooks. Picture: Mark Brake

Dr Brooks resigned from the RAH in December 2022, saying the state of its emergency department “offends the very humanity” of doctors working there.

She also said SA Health was bleeding cash due to “delusional” accounting that was being taken “seriously” by officials.

On Monday, the court heard Dr Brooks had been called to give evidence about the deaths of Anna Vincenza Panella, Bernard Anthony Skeffington, and Graham Henry Jessett.

The Coroners Court is investigating why the trio of patients were left waiting extended in ambulance bays at respective hospitals.

However, Dr Brooks said SA Health had refused to permit her to reveal “official information”, meaning her evidence could breach the Public Sector Code of Ethics.

She declined to give evidence unless compelled or granted immunity, and the court issued the certificate to permit her to speak.

On Monday, Alison Doecke KC, for the government, said the certificate was “too broad” and “lacked specificity”, and so had been “issued in error”.

Ambulances at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Kelly Barnes

She said much of what Dr Brooks might discuss was “in the public arena” already, meaning the certificate could not specify what should and should not earn protection.

Tom Cox KC, for Dr Brooker, said his client had every reason to be concerned about potential consequences if she gave evidence.

He said that, before Dr Brooks took the stand, government lawyers “asked if an affidavit could be provided”.

That affidavit, they said, should outline “what her evidence might be so that SA Health might receive some assurances about any potential disciplinary issues”.

In a subsequent letter, he said, the government said it would be “highly regrettable” if its “hands were tied” by an employee “voluntarily giving evidence”.

Mr Cox said government lawyers also expressed concerns Dr Brooks’ testimony would be “an attempt by her to embarrass the state without notice”, given her resignation comments.

Justice Ben Doyle will hand down his decision at a later date.

The content summaries were created with the assistance of AI technology, then edited and approved for publication by an editor.