You are on page 1of 12


Inquest Representative of MALCOLM ARMSTRONG HARRISON (Victim) First Appellant ANGELA JANICE HARRISON 38 Damien Place, Bromley Christchurch Niece and Inquest Representative of MALCOLM ARMSTRONG HARRISON (Victim) Second Appellant


P J Harrison and A J Harrison (Appellants) 38 Damien Place, Bromley, Christchurch 8062 Facsimile (03) 942-6557


AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD for AUCKLAND CITY HOSPITAL First Respondent ANNE OCALLAGHAN, Auckland Second Respondent KATHERINE JANE RIX-TROTT, Auckland Third Respondent AROHA WAAKA, Auckland Fourth Respondent HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER, Auckland Fifth Respondent CORONIAL SERVICES UNIT, Auckland Sixth Respondent

We PAULINE JANICE HARRISON and ANGELA JANICE HARRISON, the Appellants in the proceeding identified above, give AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD (First Respondent), ANNE OCALLAGHAN (Second Respondent), KATHERINE JANE RIX-TROTT (Third Respondent), AROHA WAAKA (Fourth Respondent), (Fifth Respondent), HEALTH AND DISABILITY UNIT




(Sixth Respondent) Notice that we are appealing to the Court against the entire judgment of ASSOCIATE JUDGE ABBOTT given in the High Court at AUCKLAND on 15 OCTOBER 2012 CIV 2011-404-006634 and orders arising from it.

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE: 1 Breach of Natural Justice right to justice. The Associate Judge is required by s 3 to apply the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The judgment is ill-

conceived, unjust and illegitimate outside statutory jurisdiction and power conferred by the Judicature Act 1908 in open court. Outside also of a commercial associate judges scope of expertise concerning a serious case of medical jurisprudence of public interest importance.

The victim, the victims immediate family and the public at large have human rights established in law which have been breached and are matters of public importance.

The substantive case is founded on solid evidence and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, The Rule of Law, HDC Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers Rights Regulation 1996, Coroners Act 2006 and United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The associate judge exceeded the statutory jurisdiction and power conferred by the Judicature Act 1908 on associate judges and also overrode the plaintiffs objection in the same fashion as he has refused all other matters raised by the plaintiffs such as discovery provisions while giving everything the defendants lawyers have asked for. Associate Judge Abbott forced his way to preside in

2 open court overriding the plaintiffs (appellants) objection and intractably refused the plaintiffs request for a Justice. The Associate Judge acknowledged he did not know about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the potent combination of drugs pivotal to this court proceeding along with a chain of major malpractice causing tormented death.

The overdue judgment by Associate Judge Abbott dated 15 October 2012 (appended) is unrecognised by the appellants on the grounds it is illegitimate against associate judge jurisdiction and power conferred in rule 1.2 of the High Court Rules and so takes liberties against the plaintiffs and downing the plaintiffs right for a Justice in open court. abuse of process. Exceeding statutory jurisdiction and power is

Associate Judge Abbott knows that the appellants have 20 working days to file an Appeal in the Court of Appeal but has monopolised the full 20 working days about costs. To expedite the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed appeal time the appellants therefore include by way of a caveat to the effect that any costs order by the associate judge and any publication order is also appealed along with the judgment on the same Grounds that such orders are unjust towards the importance of public interest on safety, victims human rights, family special interest, and on the further grounds that such orders associated with a manifested exceedance of statutory jurisdiction and power are illegitimate.

Publication of the illegitimate judgment is opposed on the grounds that such a dangerous judgment is contrary to the principles of the rule of law which requires to uphold not derogate public safety. The judgment is in error of law and

jeopardises safety for the public at large by putting them at risk by an associate judge advocating lethal polypharmacy. Such is a deceptive judgment to the public and bad law. By downcrying recognised New Zealand and International pharmaceutical safety warnings and standards and calling them and those who uphold them frivolous and vexatious to barricade the respondents from answering to the elements of malpractice the law is skewed which is unacceptable in rule of law. It is highly dangerous for a New Zealand associate judge to be read on the worldwide internet downcrying universal drug safety standards and

3 warnings and advocating lethal polypharmacy as appropriate when authorities give clear warnings against it.

Intractability, favour, apparent bias and ill will by Associate Judge Abbott.

The judgment dated 15 October 2012 was excessively late, on seven months, after the defendants interlocutory hearing on 19 March 2012 against Judicial Guidelines. It was only after the plaintiffs (appellants) complained to the Head of Bench on 8 October 2012 under rule 1.2 High Court Rules that the judgment was received at 5.21 pm on 15 October 2012 and it is still not signed.

The commercial associate judge has made bad law in a medical jurisprudence case and puts other people at potential risk from lethal polypharmacy and other malpractice by not applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which judges are required by s 31 and by opposing the New Zealand and International safety standards and drug warnings which self-admittedly he does not know about. Medical jurisprudence is concerned with a broad range of medical, legal and ethical issues, as well as human rights and rights of individuals. These elements of the case carefully researched are deadly serious and are certainly not frivolous or vexatious whatsoever. The appellants have the medical record of Mr Malcolm Armstrong Harrison which is solid evidence.

It is made clear that the appellants made complaint to the defendants about the deadly malpractice prior to the death of Michael Jackson involving some of the same drugs in combination and prior to the death of North Shore Metoprolol overdose case Shirley Curtis in North Shore Hospital.

The same associate judge has scandalously advocated a universally recognised deadly combination of highly potent drugs with long drug half-lifes and synergistic potency to an opioid nave patient and without monitoring, and overdose of Metoprolol Succinate causing cardiogenic shock causing ventricular fibrillation resulting in cardiac arrest which caused asystole with no

s 3 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 requires judges to apply the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

4 heartbeat/pulse or respiration and ruined the patients heart and caused hypoxic injury. The malpractice also included inadequate pain management and refusal to call in pain specialist expertise, also infecting the patient with nosocomial pathogenic bacteria through dirty staff hygiene by not observing hygiene standards, dehydration, under-nourished, under-oxygenation, over-fatiguing, leaving the patient unsupervised to fall over bedrails onto the floor where Mr Harrison was left until 5.00 am in the morning when another patient (not staff) found him behind the bed curtains on the floor groaning in pain, inadequate monitoring, no Arterial Blood Gas tests or other necessary tests, no echocardiogram, no trauma chest scan despite multiple broken ribs, no neurointensivist, pain specialist or respiratory physician monitoring, treatment or management, no non-invasive intracranial pressure monitoring (no optic nerve ultrasound), refusal of intensivist specialist expertise which was urgently needed in the presence of justifying signs and symptoms, omitting additional 10 mg Controlled Drug Methadone and other potent drugs on drug chart, plus a chain of other malpractice. Hindering the prima facie case from going to trial the

associate judge has barricaded the defendants from answering the elements of the case then is out to publish a dangerous precedent worldwide on the public internet advocating lethal polypharmacy APPROVED BY THE NEW ZEALAND COURT against universal safety standards and warnings, and intends to charge the appellants costs for bringing a case of public importance to court under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 19902. In any language this associate judges departure from the principles of rule of law is a diabolical stratagem of moral turpitude against the right to justice established in law of the victim, the victims family and the public at large both nationally and internationally. The associate judges irresponsible judgment that defies universal pharmaceutical safety warnings must be kept off the public internet. If such a judgment got into the wrong hands innocent people will suffer.

10 With the weight of solid evidence the plaintiffs rightly cannot ignore the first, second, third, fourth defendants major chain of malpractice which has been

s 27 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Right to Justice.

5 shielded by the fifth and sixth defendants against their legal duty, obligation and responsibility. 11 The elements of malpractice must proceed to substantive trial for the victims and familys right to justice and for public importance of safety to safeguard and prevent other victims from being put at risk by the defendants ignoring New Zealand and international safety standards and warnings and derelicting their duty of care and refusing necessaries of life to the patient. 12 The victims Immediate Family have a Special Interest in Wrongful Death of the Victim and stand up for their family and have the right to stand up for the rights of family. No one can take that away and expect family to forsake their own flesh and blood. No one has the right to refuse another persons human rights which the associate judge has done.


The Rule of Law Argument and special interest of immediate family with an unbreakable family bond reinforce the plaintiffs standing. No-one has the right to refuse a victim their legal enforceable rights established in law. Illegal acts

cannot avoid accountability under the law and under the Rule of Law the courts cannot be seen to uphold illegal acts and give favour to professional occupations which are also under the law and accountable under the law.

14 The costs proposed by the associate judge are calculated to skew the right to justice in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and deter others with genuine malpractice complaints from bringing malpractice cases to court.


Uphold the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and uphold the right to justice in section 27 and the right not to be deprived in life in section 8 and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enforceable rights in the HDC Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers Rights Regulation 1996 and Coroners Act 2006 which requires coroners to investigate

6 death by medical malpractice. Proceed to a fair and just substantive trial without bias or favour for the rights of the victim, his family and the public at large, upholding the importance of public interest in the right to justice, safety, not to be deprived of life, necessaries of life, and respect for the sanctity of life.

The appellants seek no money for themselves and do not want the defendants money.

Reversal of any costs order by the associate judge made outside jurisdiction and which conflicts with the principles of rule of law and the importance of public interest.

Reversal of any publication order by the associate judge on the grounds it would make a dangerous precedent for others to exploit by advocating lethal combinations of potent polypharmacy (contraindicated Overdose Methadone on Amiodarone, Haloperidol, High Dose Co-Trimoxazole, Benzodiazepine Midazolam, Benzodiazepine Lorazepam, Fentanyl (highly potent opioid), Morphine) to opioid nave patients with other major malpractice events causing tormented death and no accountability. This associate judges judgment destructively strikes at the root of human rights and principles affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Universal Declaration of Human Rights against the requirement in section 33. It remains that any anarchic judgment is against human rights and public law legislation made by Parliament and cannot be promulgated in a democratic country like New Zealand whose courts profess to uphold and have a statutory duty to uphold the Rule of Law, shown in ss 3, 27 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and r 1.2 High Court Rules. Such a perverse judgment by the associate judge which advocates lethal polypharmacy and doesnt care about major departures from duty of care causing extreme suffering of the victim, and which doesnt care about the consequences to the public by making a dangerous judgment against universal safety standards and warnings is a catalyst which will

Section 3 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

7 entice the avoidance of accountability with endangerment of public safety by being cited by lawyers in the future to the detriment of the public rights to safety and justice. The facts and law stand to reprove the unjust overbearing dangerous judgment made by Associate Judge Abbott which is bad law retrogressive of the Cartwright Report which recommended an enforceable Code of Patients Rights without discrimination. No-one including the defendants and the associate judge can deny the lethal power and potency of these synergistic drugs in combination which have long drug half-lives and which were contraindicatingly dispensed and administered to Mr Malcolm Armstrong Harrison an opioid nave patient as evidenced in the medical record without monitoring. The facts, the law and

universal safety standards and warnings disprove the defendants and associate judges scandalous clichs of frivolous and vexatious when overdose Methadone on Amiodarone, Haloperidol, high-dose Co-trimoxazole,

benzodiazepine Midazolam, benzodiazepam Lorazepam, Fentanyl, Morphine are drugs in combination which are universally recognised as a formula causing death and demand to be treated with due seriousness. So too overdose Metoprolol (Beta-Blocker) is universally known to cause iatrogenic cardiogenic shock with ventricular fibrillation and is a major departure of safety by the fourth defendant who ignored explicit pharmaceutical warnings and crushed Controlled Release Metoprolol succinate (crushing releases a 24 hours dose of drug into the system at once) and administered the crushed Metoprolol only nine hours after the preceding 24 hour dose causing drug-induced cardiogenic shock with ventricular fibrillation and iatrogenic cardiac arrest which damaged Mr Harrisons heart and caused hypoxia disastrous to traumatic head injury. The Crimes Act 1961 and the HDC Code of Consumers Rights are unequivocally clear that regardless of position, be it professional or otherwise, everyone is accountable under the law for breaching another persons safety. It is no defence to criticise the appellants by using catchwords used in legal parlance such as vexatious, frivolous, abuse of process to avoid answering prima facie elements of malpractice. Dr Harold Shipman was an esteemed doctor by many peoples standards, including some families of victims, but the esteem he was held in was no defence for the lives he violated. So too, Dr Morgan Fahey, another esteemed doctor and deputy mayor of Christchurch, was brought to account because he broke the law and violated patients rights. It is no defence for the defendants to use their positions

8 to avoid answering the elements of the case backed with evidence in the medical record.

Section 5.31, Schedule 2, High Court Rules provides: (2) Despite subclause (1), it is not necessary to ask for general or other relief but the court may, if it thinks just, grant any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled, even though that relief has not been specifically claimed and there is no claim for general or other relief.

As Cooke P explained in Baigent [971]: We would fail in our duty if we did not give an effective remedy to a person whose legislatively affirmed rights have been infringed.

In establishing the availability of judicial remedies, the Court of Appeal placed considerable weight on New Zealand's obligations under the international human rights covenants, in particular the ICCPR that is affirmed in the long title to the Bill of Rights Act.

If on the other hand courts are seen to be favouring professionals and not upholding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 under the requirement of s 3 of the Act without fear and favour then this is indeed a grave matter of public importance, for if the public cant depend on courts to uphold the rule of law and legislation made by Parliament for fundamental justice, not by lip service, this undermines public confidence and anarchy rules.

The appellants also wish to say in the Notice of Appeal:

That this case is brought to court with heartfelt self-sacrifice on unbreakable Principle in defence of the victims rights and to safeguard against others being exposed to the same dangerous breaches of patient safety and the appellants shall not pay money to the defendants when the evidence proves the defendants ignored New Zealand and International safety warnings and caused mortal harm to the appellants family. This is the Good Samaritan Principle upheld under

9 The Rule of Law Argument and Fundamental Justice, also Special Interest of the Victims Family and the Importance of the Public Interest which are the Principles upheld by the appellants from the outset. The Rule of Law requires that perpetrators, no matter who they are, cannot expect to walk away from committing breaches of law with grants of favour. The Acts which have been made to protect the public at large must be upheld by the courts. If any public did what these defendants did causing harm to another human being they would be accountable in law, so too the defendants are accountable under the law when they departed from and breached the law and violated patients rights and caused mortal harm when they knew better, then covered up for their wrongdoing and now in vindictive retaliation for being brought to justice want money from the victims family when all of the defendants are already insured for malpractice.
Review of Processes Concerning Adverse Medical Events By Helen Cull QC March 2001, page 75

Failure to report practitioners believed to be practising below an acceptable standard: As identified under the previous section in this report, patients have expressed their concerns as to the way in which their complaints are treated, often feeling patronised, disbelieved or belittled. With Health professionals rarely working in isolation, professional bodies consulted during the course of this Review have highlighted the problem that colleagues often know of incompetent or bad practice, but do not report it. The courage which patients describe as being needed to take on the medical profession as they see it, has clearly led to the perception that the consumer has not been believed or belittled when complaints against senior practitioners are made. The reaction to the complainants against Dr Fahey, is an example of this. New Zealand was represented at the High-level Meeting of the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on The Rule of Law at National and International Levels.4 The term rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

United Nations General Assembly

10 The appellants are not legally aided and bring this action on the principles of the Rule of Law and Fundamental Justice. Dated this 2nd day of November 2012

Appellants signatures TO TO AND The Court of Appeal Registrar of the High Court at Auckland Counsel for the Respondents:

A M Adams/C L Campbell, Meredith Connell, PO Box 2213, Auckland 1140 N Fisher, Fisher Lamberg, PO Box 9074, Newmarket, Auckland H Waalkens, PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140 N Craig, New Zealand Nurses Organisation, PO Box 8921, Symonds Street, Auckland A L Martin, Health and Disability Commissioner, 86 Victoria Street, Wellington 6011 P Gunn, Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140

This document is filed by the appellants in person. Address for service of the appellants is: 38 Damien Place, Bromley, Christchurch 8062 Facsimile (03) 942-6557 email