The Wislang Case

Welcome to The Wislang Case Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

The Wislang Case

Kate Davenport's Mythical Legal Assessor

Events in the Wislang case proved beyond reasonable doubt that prosecutor Kate Davenport's spectacular skill in concocting false charges is matched only by her ability to conjure up mythical legal personalities.

Her personality of choice in the Wislang case was that of a sort of alter ego of the Ether, a consultant to herself, a supernumerary “legal assessor” in addition to the two earthly ones we know about, Ms Bronwyn Klippel and Mr Raynor Asher who were actually employed, for proper purposes, by the Complaints Assessment Committee and the Tribunal respectively.

So persuaded was Ms Davenport by the competence and value of her fantasy figure that she invoiced the Tribunal for its services to the Complaints Assessment Committee. That body, along with its parent body the Medical Council, as far as we know has to date expressed no concern about the non-identity or actual role of this phantom of the piece.

Not so Dr Wislang upon his noting, from the Tribunal's list of costs awarded against him, that the services of this very personal legal assistant of Ms Davenport had come anything but cheap; costing, according to her, $7831; that is, only a tad less than one third of the costs awarded against him by the Tribunal and more than 10 times the fee of $775 for the one-and-only real legal assessor, Ms Klippel, that the Complaints Assessment Committee had employed to help formulate their original, perfectly valid charge which Ms Davenport irregularly went on to have supplanted by her own false one.

Dr Wislang's exposure of Ms Davenport's bogus legal assessor and her billing of the Tribunal for its services, was executed by an exchange of letters between him and Ms Davenport and the Tribunal. Upon Ms Davenport's forced admission that she had in fact taken no legal opinion at all warranting any of the expenditure she had billed the Tribunal for as legal assessor expenses, Dr Wislang requested that the Tribunal issue an Erratum to its costs bill; which it correctly and promptly did.

There is a legal description, more familiar perhaps to laymen and specialists in criminal law than to Ms Davenport, given to the use of an invoice to claim money for knowingly never rendered services, even professional ones to statutory disciplinary bodies.

Perhaps Ms Davenport, as part of her preparation to relinquish her lack-lustre role of prosecutor and ascend to the deputy chairmanship of the tribunal that she falsely billed in the wake of the Wislang case, has already brushed up on her accounting skills and somewhat refreshed her law-school memory on the law of fraud.

But how would one know?

Published Tuesday, June 6, 2006 5:47 PM by admin
Filed under: , ,


No Comments
Anonymous comments are disabled