Australia Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, Jun 1997 #2

[Mjjj14]

Sorry this isn’t right. The NCAT release is for everything on the card (other than the name of the person completing the card)

That doesn’t make sense as it would be Florabellas card and we know her name.

 

[Garyb]

Yes just looked again at the picture of her arrival card and the top of the reverse of the card (section 14) is missing. This is where I’m sure you put emergency contact details. Amazing that police have presumably had this info the whole time. Wonder who it is!

Remember the entry card that was put up on the podcast came from the Australian archives requested by one of Sallys super sleuths. Nothing to do with NCAT.

Thats why it has her name on it.

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

That doesn’t make sense as it would be Florabellas card and we know her name.

Also from the decision in relation to the passenger card “However, in my view the release of the name referred to on the top two entries of page 1 of the copy of the card unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties.”

The NCAT registrar is worried about people called Florabella Remakel being contacted by third parties.

yes a little ridiculous given there may not be anyone else in the world with that name given there are only a few hundred remakels in the world.

 

[Sophie-Renee]

Surely it must have looked different in 1997 because I’m positive it’s never asked me to fill in the details of who I’m travelling with!

I don’t think they would’ve released details like this even if there was no podcast, it goes beyond Marion’s privacy and into someone else’s. I think that’s the same with contents of medical records, even with no podcast they wouldn’t release it. The police still seem to be advocating for Marion’s privacy.

Surely the most important thing is not whether or not it is released to Sally or into the public domain, but if the NSW police will take it all into account when trying to find out what happened to Marion.

In the fullness of time, details will come out but that not jeopardising the investigation was paramount importance. The concerns will be that in releasing information into the public domain, that will be what happens. So in a way I get that while Sally herself would like the information because of the media attention, they want to keep it under wraps. But surely they will do something With it, even if refusing to name names. Surely they can come out and say they will be investigating a particular person of interest... Person A or an incident that occurred in... whatever month, that could answer a particular question.

Surely this can be done without naming specifics. The NCAT decision may be disappointing, but I find it kind of goes against also saying Sally and the podcast respect the police have a job to do and that they trust them to do it. If they won't release documents, they are not only worried for 3rd parties, but are perhaps worried it will effect the outcome of the investigation itself.

 

[Mjjj14]

Also from the decision in relation to the passenger card “However, in my view the release of the name referred to on the top two entries of page 1 of the copy of the card unconditionally could cause significant issues where persons of that name are approached by third parties.”

The NCAT registrar is worried about people called Florabella Remakel being contacted by third parties.

yes a little ridiculous given there may not be anyone else in the world with that name given there are only a few hundred remakels in the world.

I don’t think that’s what it means but I’m happy to hear other people’s opinions on it.

 

[Mjjj14]

Here is a sample of a passenger entry card. This particular card was issued in 2015 so clearly not exactly the same but the information is similar.

The part I assume the tribunal member is wanting to redact is the name and contact details of the emergency contact.

I say that because a) it is already public information that Marion changed her name to Florabella Remakel so NCAT wouldn’t need to redact it and b) it was available to Florabellas next of kin via other avenues.

I suppose it’s semantics anyway because we have the card with the emergency contact cut off.

 

[KiwiNZ]

The podcast have the full card, if it is cut off in anyway, it’s because they just have not shared that info, They would have the same card as the police have. the one they received from the NNA would not be retracted in anyway.

 

[Garyb]

The podcast have the full card, if it is cut off in anyway, it’s because they just have not shared that info, They would have the same card as the police have. the one they received from the NNA would not be retracted in anyway.

Exactly

 

[KiwiNZ]

The podcast have the full card, if it is cut off in anyway, it’s because they just have not shared that info, They would have the same card as the police have. the one they received from the NNA would not be retracted in anyway.

Just adding to my above comment .....Unless of course it’s standard practice by the NNA to omit section 14 when releasing boarding passes to the public, this could be checked by viewing other boarding passes to see if the sme section is missing

 

[JLZ]

Sorry this isn’t right. The NCAT release is for everything on the card (other than the name of the person completing the card)

Could this be about a passenger card other than Marion's, someone else who was on the same flight?

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

My GP was prescribing me antidepressants from the early 2000s; well before the Rudd government. In the second half of the 1990s, not sure the exact year, another GP wanted to prescribe me an antidepressant, but I declined. (Queensland.)

I'm a bit late to the party and the conversation has moved on but I just wanted to say sorry. Yes you're right JLZ my mistake. The changes made by Labor extended Medicare coverage which increased accessibility by making them more affordable, not by changing who perscribed. The point I was making was that if Marion had been experiencing disassociation, a break down or severe emotional disturbance/distress as has been suggested her care would be managed by a psychiatrist not a GP.

 

[Intriguedbyintrigue]

You are right there is usually the 7 year rule that applies especially to such confidential information. But even just the fact if a doctor could see a patient had not seen anyone in 7 years alarm bells would ring. It's a shame that the 7 year rule doesn't then trigger some warning bells. But then... What doctors or bankers have time for that? It's not their job.. Its just such a shame that while we should not have to live in a surveillance state that there are some indicators if records could be used that could actually help to alert something being amiss. If Sally had been taken seriously straight away, there could have been so much documentation to draw on that has since been destroyed.

It's been a while since I listened to that episode but from memory when the podcast followed up on the doctors visits wasnt the issue that the Doctor surgery had closed??
Doctors keep patient notes for their own use but they dont exist in isolation. Information is also recorded with Medicare. Police have the Medicare info so the information isnt lost it's just not available to Sally.
I have no idea what the rules are around GP retention of patient information but I think the 7yr period relates to billing/financial data (because if the ATO audit you they can go back 7yrs)

 

[JLZ]

I'm a bit late to the party and the conversation has moved on but I just wanted to say sorry. Yes you're right JLZ my mistake. The changes made by Labor extended Medicare coverage which increased accessibility by making them more affordable, not by changing who perscribed. The point I was making was that if Marion had been experiencing disassociation, a break down or severe emotional disturbance/distress as has been suggested her care would be managed by a psychiatrist not a GP.

No I'm sorry that was really picky of me. I started off meaning to say I agreed with your main point about dissociative disorders (eg with fugue tendencies) being serious and not likely to have gone unnoticed until someone's fifties.

 

[CatInTheHat7]

After reading the NCAT decision and seeing the Incoming Passenger Card, I agree with others that the name withheld is Florabella’s name. Looking back over the Facebook video, Q14 pertains to Australian citizenship - this question hasn’t been cutoff. And there appears to only one name written on the card. Additionally, in the NCAT decision there is only reference to Marion Barter and none to Florabella. This leads me to assume that Sally has only referred to Marion by this name in the application. And that the new passport nor the new name was not mentioned in the application. This would therefore give explanation as to why the member has made the decision to not allow release of this name - they may not have knowledge that it is information already known/revealed elsewhere nor is it part of the application and subsequent decision.

 

[Seriallyaddicted]

After reading the NCAT decision and seeing the Incoming Passenger Card, I agree with others that the name withheld is Florabella’s name. Looking back over the Facebook video, Q14 pertains to Australian citizenship - this question hasn’t been cutoff. And there appears to only one name written on the card. Additionally, in the NCAT decision there is only reference to Marion Barter and none to Florabella. This leads me to assume that Sally has only referred to Marion by this name in the application. And that the new passport nor the new name was not mentioned in the application. This would therefore give explanation as to why the member has made the decision to not allow release of this name - they may not have knowledge that it is information already known/revealed elsewhere nor is it part of the application and subsequent decision.

Yes agree.

 

[Josiegirl62]

Here is the link to the NCAT decision .. interesting reading.

Leydon v Commissioner of Police - NSW Caselaw
Good Luck Sally, I hope what they release is helpful.

 

[Mjjj14]

It's been a while since I listened to that episode but from memory when the podcast followed up on the doctors visits wasnt the issue that the Doctor surgery had closed??
Doctors keep patient notes for their own use but they dont exist in isolation. Information is also recorded with Medicare. Police have the Medicare info so the information isnt lost it's just not available to Sally.
I have no idea what the rules are around GP retention of patient information but I think the 7yr period relates to billing/financial data (because if the ATO audit you they can go back 7yrs)

Medicare info is a bit different to the patient notes that would be taken by the doctor. In my experience subpoenaing Medicare it will just say for example “consult type - general” or “standard consult” or something generic like that, it will tell you the practice name they attended but not what the consult pertained to. Those notes stay with the medical practice and may be destroyed after 7 years, but some practices do keep them. If the practice closes or changes hands then there’s a slim chance of the records still existing (again in my experiences with medical records only).

 

[Mjjj14]

Deleted double post

 

[JerseyGirl]

This thread has reached its limit. I will move over recent posts and close this one shortly.

Please continue here: Australia - Australia - Marion Barter, 51, missing after trip to UK, June 1997 #3