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
No comments:
Post a Comment