Body part case dismissed over legal loophole

A hospital refuse worker who recorded images of human body parts to keep as “memorabilia” has had a charge of interfering with a corpse dismissed after a Perth court ruled yesterday that body parts did not necessarily qualify as “human remains” under law.

The ruling sparked one health consumer group to call for a legislative review and the Australian Medical Association WA to reassure patients that medical staff were trained to treat body parts with respect.

Dwayne Lawrence Goff, 27, faced trial in the Perth Magistrate’s Court after he used his mobile phone to take a photo of human toes and footage of a human leg being manipulated by a co-worker while he was employed by a refuse company contracted to work at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.

Police alleged that during the footage of the leg, which was played to Magistrate Elizabeth Woods but not the rest of the court, Mr Goff was heard to say “It’s a f…… knee-cap. Meaty”. Mr Goff claims he said “a bit of meat”, not “meaty”.

The macabre images were found by police after they seized Mr Goff’s phone during other enquiries at a Gosnells address he was staying at temporarily in May this year.

Mr Goff, who worked with the waste disposal company for about two years before leaving in 2006, was charged with interfering with and making indignant comments about human remains under a section of WA’s criminal code covering misconduct with corpses.

The section of the legislation used in Mr Goff’s case deals specifically with a “dead human body or human remains”.

Yesterday, Ms Woods agreed with a no-case-to-answer submission made by defence lawyer Nicholas Stevenson in which he argued “human remains” meant parts from a dead body, not a living one.

Mr Stevenson said because the limb and digits were amputated, it was likely the owners were still alive – possibly as a direct result of the surgery.

Police prosecutor Sgt Brett Spark argued that the “spirit” of the law meant it should apply.

But Mr Stevenson argued that the term “human remains” had to be kept tight, otherwise “the law could be open to cover even a baby’s tooth”.

“What else comes under the banner – donated blood, sewage?” Mr Stevenson asked in court.

Ms Woods decided police had not proven the charge against Mr Goff and dismissed the case.

“While what was done was probably tasteless, it does not constitute a criminal offence for the circumstances,” she said.

AMA State president Geoff Dobb said Mr Goff’s actions were ethically questionable but it was important patients still had confidence in the hospital system.

“I think it’s important that the public do have confidence that parts of bodies are treated with absolute respect. That is something that is absolutely drummed into medical students from day one and it’s important that everyone working in a hospital take the same approach,” he said.

Health Consumers Council executive director Michele Kosky labelled the case “bizarre”.

“As a general principle patients would expect that their bodies and body parts are always treated with the respect and dignity they should be whether they are alive or dead. Perhaps the legislation needs to be reviewed to reflect that,” she said.

Mr Goff, who was described by his former boss during the court proceedings as a good worker, admitted to the court his behaviour had been “stupid” and “juvenile”, saying he made the recordings to use as “memorabilia” and to show friends, if they could “stomach it”, what he dealt with in his job.

But he said he did not know the actions were illegal.

The court awarded Mr Goff $4500 in legal costs.

CHRISTIANA JONES

as posted on WestAustralian