Aus Supreme Court asks defence to bring Patel before it
With defence lawyers failing to show up for the hearing in the Jayant Patel case, the Australian Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Indian-origin surgeon to be brought before it to determine the progress of his fraud charges.Updated: May 06, 2011 15:46 IST
With defence lawyers failing to show up for the hearing in the Jayant Patel case, the Australian Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Indian-origin surgeon to be brought before it to determine the progress of his fraud charges.
Supreme Court judge asked Patel be appear from jail next week to explain what was happening with his case, media.
Patel was listed to appear for mention today in the Supreme Court in Brisbane on eight fraud and attempted fraud charges. It was the second week in a row Patel's fraud matters were listed for mention but neither Patel nor any lawyers representing him appeared.
It's alleged he lied to gain employment at the Bundaberg Base Hospital.
He is also accused of hiding the fact that he had been found guilty of gross negligence in the United States before he was hired in Bundaberg and was banned from performing oesophagectomies and some abdominal operations.
However, there still seems to be confusion over who is representing the former doctor, with defence lawyers failing to show up to court for the second time in as many weeks.
Justice Glenn Martin adjourned the matter until next Friday, and ordered Patel be brought before the court to discuss how the matter will progress.
In July last year, the 60-year-old Patel was jailed after a jury found him guilty of the manslaughter of three -Gerry Kemps, James Phillips and Mervyn Morris as well as guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to Ian Rodney Vowles on various dates between March 2003 and April 2005.
Patel lost his appeal against convictions and his seven-years jail sentence.
The Attorney General also lost his appeal against Patel's sentence as being inadequate.
According to Prosecutor Ross Martin, who was present today for the Crown, he expected either Patel or his lawyers would be in court to explain what was to happen.
Martin said if the matters were to take a "certain course" which did not involve a trial then it would make sense for the fraud charges to stay in the Supreme Court.
He said it would make sense because they could then be dealt with by Justice John Byrne who had been the trial judge on Patel's manslaughter and grievous bodily harm charges.
Justice Martin said Justice Byrne was listed to handle the mention hearings next week.
Martin replied that would seem a sensible idea for the matter to be brought before Byrne.