ICARE'S DEMAND FOR $130,000 DESPITE ZERO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME HAVING BEEN COMMITTED

 James Ricketson

58 Braidwood Road

Goulburn 2580

jamesricketson@gmail.com

0488543555

 

The Hon. Christopher Minns, MP 

Premier of NSW

GPO Box 5341
Sydney NSW 2001                                                               13th. December 2025

 

Dear Premier

 

re W5025/22 Sweet Art Special Events Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare)

 

Further to the dozen letters I have written to you regarding this matter - not one of which has resulted in a response from your office.

 

On 9th. December Mr Butcher, representing icare, presented Ms. L with an agreement to sign which begins:

 

1. XXXXX XXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX, (“the worker”) was employed by the Employer when he allegedly suffered an injury in the course of employment on 28/10/2019.

 

The operative word here is ‘allegedly’. CM has never,  during the five years this matter has dragged on, produced one iota of evidence that he was bullied on 28/10/2019 or at any other time during the 28 days, in total, that he worked for ‘Sweet Art’.  Nor has icare, or the Personal Injuries Commission.

 

In what other legal jurisdiction can an accused person be found guilty of 'allegedly' committing a crime? Surely it is a fundamental tenet of any legal proceeding that evidence of a crime, misdemeanour or wrong-doing having been committed is required  before either a guilty or innocent verdict is arrived at?

 

That the PIC requires no evidence, but is happy to rely on allegations only is to be found in a letter I wrote to Judge Phillips on 11th August 2023 in which I quoted

from the PIC website, that ...

 

... the new Commission is not bound by the Rules of Evidence, and is to act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms. 

 

I asked Judge Gerard Phillips in my 11th August 2023 letter to him:

 

Leaving aside the specifics of this particular case, am I correct in concluding, in the case of alleged  'bullying', that an insurance claimant is under no obligation, as far as the PIC is concerned, to provide evidence that he or she has been bullied? 

 

Judge Phillips did not answer my question. 

 

The PIC is a law unto itself, feeling under no obligation to answer questions or provide evidence in support of its Star Chamber decisions. It is a tax-payer funded body devoid of commitment to either transparency or accountability. It cannot be relied upon to act in 'good conscience' or of the 'substantial merits on the case.' The way in which the PIC has handled this matter makes it clear that it is not fir for purpose.

 

As has been evident to icare since 2019, Mr. M had a 30+ year history of mental health issues before Ms. L employed him. The notion that something happened to him on the 28th October 2019 that rendered him incapable of ever working again is nonsense of the kind that does not pass the pub test. The PIC, along with icare, knows this. Both bodies know that no evidence is required of what transpired on 28th August that year. And nor, needless to say, is any provided by Ms. Haddock, Mr. Butcher or Judge Phillips. CM's' 'allegation' is all that is required to force Ms. L to sell her home.

 

At the risk of belabouring the point, both icare and the PIC have been asked many times what evidence of bullying has informed their respective decisions, but have refused to present any - for the simple reason that there is none, and both organisations know it.

 

Leaving aside the financial consequences for Ms. L - being forced to sell her only asset, her house - Mr Butcher is asking Ms. L to sign a document in which she acknowledges, by implication, that she bullied CM, when no evidence has ever been provided that she did so.  This will go on record and in the future any complaint by her that she was mistreated by icare will be met by icare's declaration that back in 2024 she acknowledged in writing, by implication, that she had bullied Mr. M.

 

A serious fraud has been perpetrated here - an alleged crime for which there is no evidence set to cost Ms. L $130,000 and result in her having to sell her only asset - the home she has lived in this past 40 years.

 

Judge Phillips, as President on the PIC, is well aware that there is no evidence of bullying and should have stepped in two or three years ago and insisted that in the absence of evidence iCare had no case and that Ms., Haddock should throw it out.

 

Why he did not do so is a mystery, and one that Judge Phillips has no intention of clearing up.  And nor is he requited to do so given that rules of evidence do not apply to PIC rulings.

 

Judge Phillips lacks the legal integrity to be President of the PIC, Mr Butcher is a cold-blooded bureaucrat interested only in recouping from Ms. L part of the legal expenses he has incurred on icare’s behalf in pushing this matter as he has in the absence of evidence. As for Ms Haddock, the errors and omissions in her Statement of Reasons are many - the most egregious of which is lying about the text messages between Mr. M and Ms. L not being dated. She is not fit for purpose to work for the PIC.

 

And you, Premier, have sat on your hands and allowed this perversion of justice to continue without even bothering to ask the key question that should have been asked five years ago, and by yourself at least  year ago: 

 

"What evidence does iCare and the PIC have that CM was ever bullied?"

 

Perhaps you wonder why it is that tax-payer funded organisations such as iCare and the PIC are held in such low regard by the public? This is the reason - the contemptuous way in which they treat members of the public they deal with. 

 

This relentless pursuit of Ms. L has been a face-saving exercise on the part Mr Butcher, Ms Haddock, Judge Phillips and others involved in this legal farce. For icare and the PIC not to find against Ms L would expose them, at the very least, as being incompetent, not fit for purpose, and at worst guilty of behaving in a way which, were I to use the word, would leave me open to defamation charges. 

 

Ms. L had been a disposable pawn in this shell game. That you have all destroyed her life is of no consequence. And the money Mr Butcher hopes to receive when she has sold her house is of no consequence either. It won’t even cover icare’s legal bill accrued in pursuit of her. 

 

Mr Butcher has known, since 2020 that CM has played iCare for a sucker, defrauded the insurance company for which he worked, but has pursed Ms L anyway - because the alternative would have been to admit that he had nor performed due diligence in the matter, but simply accepted CM' allegation as being the truth, and found a complaint psychiatrist who would provide icare with the ‘evidence’ of bullying so important to keeping this fraudulent case alive. That Dr. Clarke never met his client matters not at all when it comes to the decisions made by the PIC

 

For whatever reason, the PIC gone along with the evidence free-allegations of bullying and Ms. L’s personal and professional lives have been destroyed as a result.

 

I will continue to publish all of my correspondence, with certain names redacted, until such time as evidence of bullying is presented by icare, the PIC or your office.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc icare

PIC

ICAC

LETTER TO PREMIER MINNS

 James Ricketson

58 Braidwood Road

Goulburn 2580

jamesricketson@gmail.com

0488543555

 

The Hon. Christopher Minns, MP 

Premier of NSW

GPO Box 5341
Sydney NSW 2001                                                                  10th. December 2025

 

Dear Premier

 

re XXXXXX Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare)

 

 

My many letters to you regarding this matter have been ignored. The clear injustice that is being perpetrated here is of no concern to you, and clearly won’t be until such time as the mainstream media takes an interest in it – at which point, you will, no doubt, act.

 

If you do a little research, Premier, you will discover that over the past 40 years, Ms. L – a very talented ‘cake artist’ - has donated her time, her energy, her cakes to the organising of multiple charitable functions to raise money for those in our community who are less fortunate. She has done so out of the goodness of her heart; the generosity of her spirit. Don’t take my word for it. Get someone within your government to ask around. Or, if you have five minutes to spare, just google Ms.L and find out for yourself.

 

What icare has done here, with the blessing of Judge Gerard Phillips and the Personal Injuries Commission, is turn Ms.L’s personal life into a nightmare this past 5 years, and destroyed her business of 40+ years – all because she offered, in 2019, to help a man who was down on his luck and who had, just a few week before, felt so miserable that he tried to kill himself. 

 

If this is the response of insurers such as icare and of the PIC, and now your government, to such acts of generosity on the part of men and women like Ms. L. don’t be surprised if fewer and fewer ‘Good Samaritans’ offer to help others in our community out of fear of the dire possible consequences for themselves.

 

One lesson to be learnt from this sad tale of institutional cold-heartedness and incompetence is just how easy it is to pull off an insurance scam with icare. All a scamster needs to do is: 

 

(1)     Get a job s/he is not qualified to do.

(2)     Fail to do the job they have been employed to do.

(3)     Fail to turn up for work.

(4)     Send threatening messages to their employer.

(5)     Find a psychiatrist prepared to declare them incapable of working as a result of  being traumatised by employer bullying. No meeting required.

(6)     Get icare to pursue the ‘bully’ legally, despite there being no evidence of bullying.

(7)     icare will accept the bullying allegation without question or investigation.

(8)     The PIC will provide a rubber stamp for icare’s decision.

 

The end result for the clever scamster will be being set up for life financially, whilst the alleged bully’s personal and personal lives are destroyed.

 

This is happening on your watch, Premier, but you clearly do not care. If you did, you would, at the very least, employ an independent investigator to take a close look at CM and reassure yourself, before signing off of on the complete destruction of Ms. L’s life, that he NOT is a very clever scamster who has played icare and the PIC for suckers.

 

It is possible to be both mentally ill and to be a master scamster. CM seems to fall into this category. On the basis of the evidence available in many medical reports dating back 30 years, Mr. M is clearly unstable, has problems with alcohol and drugs, is a fantasist who makes untrue claims about what he has done in his life and has discovered an way to set himself up for the rest of his life - at a cost of in excess of $2 million to the community. That he has destroyed Ms. L’s life is of no concern him. Or to icare, the PIC or your government.

 

Putting Ms. L.'s case to one side, surely it is in the interests of the community at large that there be a crack-down on such insurance scams.

 

Ask some questions, Premier. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

Cc Judge Gerard Phillips

Icare

ICAC

IS JUDGE GERARD PHILLIPS THE RIGHT PERSON TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE PERSONAL INJURIES COMMISSION?

 

James Ricketson

58 Braidwood Road

Goulburn 2580

0488543555

jamesricketson@gmail.com

 

 

Judge Gerard Phillips

President, Personal Injuries Commission

c/o PIC Media Unit.

media@pi.nsw.gov.au

8th. August 2023

 

Dear Judge Phillips

 

re W5025/22 XXXXX Special Events Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare)

 

I have been a friend of Ms. L. for 40 years. I am a filmmaker and journalist. Last year I commenced filming a documentary about Ms. L's life. When I became aware of the matter before the Commission I realised that I could not leave out this particular chapter in her life. In order to be as well informed as possible I read some documents relating to it.

 

I made contact with icare in hopes of obtaining from the insurer answers to some questions. (see correspondence, attached) 

 

icare did not wish to answer my initial questions and suggested, in June this year, that I make contact with the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) in order to obtain answers. I did not feel the need to do so at the time.

 

After I had read more documents I wondered why the PIC was allowing icare to proceed with this matter.  I sought again to obtain answers to my new questions from icare. As is apparent in my correspondence, Mr. Harding has, firstly, declined answer my questions, and subsequently ignored them.

 

Please accept this letter, sent electronically, as a request that the PIC

provide me with answers to a variety of questions, after it has handed down its  findings in this matter.

 

In the investigative piece I am writing I will redact Mr. M's name and anything in it that might serve to identify him.

 

In the interests of transparency, I am copying this to Mr. Richard Harding, CEO of icare. 

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

XXXX

 

Judge Gerard Phillips

President, Personal Injuries Commission

c/o PIC Media Unit.

media@pi.nsw.gov.au

11 th. August 2023

 

Dear Judge Phillips

 

re W5025/22 XXXXX Special Events Pty Ltd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare)

 

Further to my letter of 8th August.

 

The PIC Media Unit has responded to my letter as follows:

 

Dear Mr Ricketson,

 

Thank you for your enquiry.

 

The Personal Injury Commission is an independent statutory tribunal and is unable to comment on the details of individual matters or release documents related to specific dispute applications.

 

All decisions determined by the Commission are published on the legal research databases of AustLII, BarNet Jade and Lexis Nexis. In exceptional circumstances decisions may be de-identified or redacted before publication.

 

Kind regards,

Georgie

 

Georgie Wells
Manager, Communications and Events

Personal Injury Commission

 

I learn from the PIC website, that ...

 

... the new Commission is not bound by the Rules of Evidence, and is to act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms. 

 

Leaving aside the specifics of this particular case, am I correct in concluding, in the case of alleged  'bullying', that an insurance claimant is under no obligation, as far as the PIC is concerned, to provide evidence that he or she has been bullied? 

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

cc. Richard Harding, CEO icare

 

XXXXX

 

 

15 th. August 2023

 

Dear Judge Phillips

 

Further to my letters of 8th. and 11th August.

 

The PIC Media Unit has responded to my most recent letter to you as follows:

 

Dear Mr Ricketson,

 

Thank you for your further correspondence.

 

As previously advised, the Personal Injury Commission is an independent statutory tribunal. Our decision makers are highly experienced experts in their field. Their decisions are published in the public domain and can be the subject of an internal appeal process. The Commission also has a detailed resource library on its website.

 

The Commission is unable to provide legal advice. Previous determinations made by the Commission in relation to psychological injuries caused by the actions of employers are available on the legal research databases mentioned in our earlier response.

 

Kind regards,

Georgie

 

 

Georgie Wells
Manager, Communications and Events

Personal Injury Commission

 

 

(1) This response from your media unit does not answer my simple question in relation to evidence of bullying.

 

(2) The PIC 'decision makers' may well be ' highly experienced experts in their field', but this does not, surely, absolve them from their obligation to be transparent and accountable in the decisions they make? The PIC is, after all, a tax-payer funded body.

 

(3) Both icare and the PIC know that there is no evidence of 'bullying' and, it seems, that no evidence is required for an employer to be found guilty of it. This is mystifying to me. It is this question I am trying to have clarified in my letters to you and Mr. Richard Harding, CEO of icare - to whom I am copying this letter.

 

(4) That the PIC decision in this matter will be 'published in the public domain' raises the question: 'Will CM's name be published?' If so, would it be ethical for me to publish it also, given the well-documented mental health problems Mr. M suffers from? Might not publication of his name have an adverse effect on his mental health? He is, after all, a man who has attempted to take his own life.

 

(5) Regardless of the decision the PIC makes vis a vis publication of Mr. M' name, I will not publish it.

 

(6) If the PIC decides, out of concern for Mr. M' mental health, not to publish his name, will this not be an admission that the anonymous person who initiated the legal process the PIC has adjudicated, suffers from mental illness? Given that there is no evidence of bullying on Ms L's part, and no evidence that XXXXX failed to pay him, (and indeed overpaid him), will not this, in conjunction with the claimant's having threatened to kill Ms. L, raise legitimate questions as regards the wisdom of icare in prosecuting this case, and the PIC deciding to run it?

 

(7) If Mr. M' name is redacted, will Ms. L's also?

 

I will ask my 11th. August question again,  of both yourself and of Mr. Richard Harding:

 

"Can allegations of 'bullying' be made against an employer without the employee making the allegations being required to provide evidence that it has occurred?"

 

You will appreciate that I am professionally obliged, wearing my journalist's hat, to put such questions to you and Mr. Harding and provide you with an opportunity to answer them if you so choose.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

cc Mr. Richard Harding, CEO icare

 

15th August email from Glenn Capel

 

Good afternoon Mr Ricketson

 

My name is Glenn Capel and I am the Division Head of the Workers Compensation of the Personal Injury Commission.

 

Your email dated 15 August 2023 and earlier correspondence have been referred to me for review and comment.

 

I note that you are a close friend of Ms. L. and you seek answers to certain questions regarding a dispute involving her business that is currently being litigated in the Personal Injury Commission.

 

The Commission has previously provided responses to the questions raised in your letter and emails.  

 

You were informed that the Personal Injury Commission is an independent statutory tribunal and cannot comment on the details of matters or release documents.  It is not a tax payer funded tribunal as suggested by you.

 

You were advised that the Commission is unable to provide legal advice. You were invited to review previously reported decisions relating to psychological injuries caused by the actions of employers. This would enable you to understand the nature of evidence that is required in matters in the Commission.

 

You are not a party in the proceedings. It is not appropriate for the Commission to comment about your views regarding the evidence or lack of evidence of bullying in Ms L’s matter. If this is a live issue for determination, it will be a matter for the Member with conduct of the proceedings based on the evidence filed and the submissions of the legal representatives.

 

Your most recent letter cavils with the Commission’s responses. I can understand that you might have some difficulty understanding the intricacies of workers compensation law in New South Wales. The law is complex and is difficult for Members, barristers and lawyers, let alone a lay person, to comprehend.

 

The Members of the Commission are required to adhere to the Member Code of Conduct. This identifies their obligations and can be reviewed on the Commission’s website.

 

The Commission has a statutory obligation to publish decisions. You were previously advised that the names of parties can be de-identified and publication of decisions can be withheld on application of the parties in exceptional circumstances. The ill health of an injured worker is one such circumstance. If the decision is eventually published, you will be able to read it.

 

Not all uninsured parties have the opportunity to retain lawyers, and many appear without legal representation.  Ms. L. has a very experienced lawyer appearing on her behalf. I would suggest, with respect, that you speak with him with Ms L’s permission and hopefully he can provide answers to some of your questions.

 

I hope that my response helps you understand why the Commission cannot provide you with the answers that you seek. Please note that the Commission will not engage any further with you.

 

Regards

 

Glenn Capel

Division Head

Workers Compensation Division

Personal Injury Commission 
e Glenn.Capel@pi.nsw.gov.au

 

XXXXX

 

15 th. August 2023 (second letter)

 

Dear Judge Phillips

 

Further to my letters of 8th, 11th and 15th August.

 

Glenn Capel, Division Head, Workers Compensation Division, has responded to my correspondence on your behalf.

 

I wear three hats here:

 

(1) Ms.L. is a friend of 40 years standing.

(2) I am a filmmaker, and it was in this capacity that I first became interested in this matter.

(3) I am a journalist.

 

With 50 years of experience working in the 4th Estate I am capable of approaching these three different roles in the manner appropriate to each.

 

My question regarding 'evidence of bullying' is a generic one. Leaving aside the question of 'bullying' in Ms. L's case I am primarily interested, this afternoon,  in trying to understand the concept of 'workplace bullying' such that I can express it in words that the general public (for whom I write) will understand.

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"You were informed that the Personal Injury Commission is an independent statutory tribunal and cannot comment on the details of matters or release documents." 

 

Response: I have not asked the PIC to comment on this matter and nor have I requested that the PIC release any documents.

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"It is not a tax payer funded tribunal as suggested by you."

 

Response: My presumption in this regard is based on what appears on the PIC website:

 

"The Commission is an independent statutory tribunal within the New South Wales justice system, committed to providing a transparent and independent dispute resolution service."

 

If the Commission is not funded by New South Wales tax-payers, could you please tell me from whence its funding comes?

 

Mr.Capel writes:

"You were advised that the Commission is unable to provide legal advice."

 

Response: I have not sought any legal advice.

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"You were invited to review previously reported decisions relating to psychological injuries caused by the actions of employers."

 

Response: For a journalist seeking to obtain an answer to a simple 'bullying' question, this would be like akin to finding a needle in a haystack. I am not in a position to spend many hours, and perhaps days searching through cases that may or may not illuminate for me what does and what does not constitute 'bullying' in the view of the PIC. Perhaps you could help me by indicating which cases you have in mind that might serve to educate me in this matter?

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"You are not a party in the proceedings. It is not appropriate for the Commission to comment about your views regarding the evidence or lack of evidence of bullying in Ms. L’s matter."

 

Response: I have not asked you, Judge, to comment on my views. Mr Capel is setting up a 'Straw Man' argument here. I draw your attention, again, to an extract to be found on the PIC website:

 

"... the new Commission is not bound by the Rules of Evidence, and is to act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms. 

 

I am confused. Could you please clarify for readers what role 'evidence' plays in Members making a determination regarding 'bullying'? Are Members required only to act in accordance with 'equity, good conscience and the merits of the case', regardless of evidence?

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"... it will be a matter for the Member with conduct of the proceedings based on the evidence filed and the submissions of the legal representatives."

 

Response: Will whatever evidence the Members rely on in making their decision be available for scrutiny on the PIC website after the decision has been handed down?

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"The law is complex and is difficult for Members, barristers and lawyers, let alone a lay person, to comprehend."

 

Response: This may well be the case, but surely such complexity applies to many matters before courts and tribunals of one kind or another? Given the PIC's commitment to precept of transparency it must be possible for the PIC to provide a broad outline, at least, of what constitutes 'bullying' in the workplace? 

 

In just twenty seconds of online research I come upon the following:

 

Workplace bullying is repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or a group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety.

 

Surely, the PIC must work in accordance with a definition of 'repeated' and 'unreasonable' that can be understood by members of the public and, in this case, by a journalist simply trying to understand what constitutes 'bullying'? If 'repeated' and 'unreasonable' are just vague notions that even barristers and lawyers struggle to understand, isn't the PIC leaving the door wide open for scamsters to defraud insurers? Especially if all the 'evidence' they need to make an allegation of bullying is to find a doctor who, after one therapeutic session conducted online, will declare that the person alleging that he or she has been bullied, has been so badly damaged, psychologically, that s/he is unable to work?

 

Regarding Mr. Capel's suggestion that I speak with Ms. L's lawyer, I have done so on several occasions and am well aware of his thoughts and feelings about this matter.

 

Mr.Capel writes:

 

"Please note that the Commission will not engage any further with you.

 

Response: It is, of course, your prerogative to answer not questions. Readers can and will arrive at whatever conclusions they wish to regarding the PIC's commitment to transparency and accountability. As for myself, half a century of dealing with bureaucracies of one kind or another in many a government has prepared me for this response. The first step is to refuse to answer questions. The second is use a word like 'engage' to create the illusion, for the record, that questions have been answered and that the person who continues to ask them is being unreasonable. The third step is to simply ignore further questions in hopes that the person asking them will give up.

 

Finally, Mr.Capel writes:

 

"The Commission has previously provided responses to the questions raised in your letter and emails." 

 

Response: A response is not the same as an answer, Judge Phillips. My question remains unanswered: 

 

"Can allegations of 'bullying' be made against an employer without the employee making the allegations being required to provide evidence that it has occurred?"

 

I will add one more question:

 

"Does an employer have any right of redress if s/he is intimidated by an employee with threats to go to the media, and a body such as the PIC if s/he does not submit to the employees demands?"

 

At the risk of belabouring the point, I trust that you appreciate my professional obligation to ask questions regarding 'evidence' and 'bullying' and give you and the PIC an opportunity to provide answers.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc. Mr. Richard Harding, CEO icare

 

XXXXX

 

 

19 th. September 2023

 

Dear Judge Phillips

 

Further to my letters of 8th, 11th and 15th. August - none of which you have acknowledged receipt of.

 

I write this follow up letter not as a journalist or filmmaker but as a friend of Ms. L.

 

This matter, dragging on as it has for four years, has led to the closure of the kitchen in which Ms. L. has, for 40 years, created the cakes for which she has an international reputation. Her income has dropped to almost zero. This matter is a very personal and quite dispiriting  tragedy for an artist whose medium is cake sculpture. It has caused her many months of emotional distress and physical illness as she awaits a decision from the PIC.

 

Has this legal exercise been worth the money and effort both icare and the PIC have expended this past four years? Has it been worth destroying the career of one employer in pursuit of justice for the crimes against an employee that it is alleged, by icare, the employer is guilty of?

 

If CM has lied to icare and the PIC about the various other jobs he held whilst blaming Ms. L. for his financial problems back in 2019, if he has defrauded both Centrelink and the Australian Tax Office, will the PIC be publicly critical of icare for failing to practice due diligence prior to commencing legal proceedings against Ms. L.? Will the PIC issue an apology to Ms. L. for not insisting, at least three years ago, that icare practice due diligence before pursuing this matter as it has?

 

If the PIC determines that Ms. L. has no case to answer, will icare be asked to recompense Ms. L. for lost income? Will icare be setting in place mechanisms to prevent this happening to other employers in the future?

 

Will the PIC make adjustments to its modus operandi such that businesses  like XXXXX are not destroyed by employees with malicious intentions; by employees who suffer from mental illnesses; by scammers who must be well aware of how vulnerable workers compensation schemes such as icare are to those who wish to exploit their procedural flaws?

 

I again seek an interview once this matter reaches its procedural conclusion.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc. Mr. Richard Harding, CEO icare

 

XXXXX

 

27th. October 2023

 

Dear Judge Phillips

 

re PIC reference: COR-04504-2023 

 

Further to my previous letters to you.

 

On 25th Oct. I received a letter from Marianne Christmann, Principal Registrar, in response to my letter to Premier Minns, dated 3rd. October.

 

I have been working in the media for 50 years and am familiar with the work of spin doctors whose job it is to create the illusion that a matter has been dealt with appropriately, in the hope that a problem can be made to magically disappear. Such is Ms. Christmann's letter.

 

I have attached three letters that speak for themselves:

 

(1) Dr. Thomas Oldtree Clark, 20th. October

(2) Ms. Kerry Haddock, 24th. October 

(3) Dr. Brad Mc Kay, 27th. October

 

I trust that the PIC will respond appropriately to the many legitimate journalist's questions implicit in all three letters.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc. Mr. Richard Harding, CEO icare

The Hon. Christopher Minns, Premier of NSW