Independent MP Janet Woollard has sent a letter to every household in her electorate defending her son and claiming Kate Campbell exaggerated her medical costs and pursued legal action to vilify the Woollard family.

The member for Alfred Cove has used the letter to address the issues surrounding the civil court trial between her son Luke Woollard and Kate Campbell who was severely injured when a boat driven by Mr Woollard crashed into an unlit pylon on the Canning River.

A District Court judge has ordered Mr Woollard to pay Ms Campbell $230,000 in damages in March this year, but the 23-year old claims not have the means to pay the money.

In the letter Dr Woollard said Ms Campbell had “recovered well,” from her injuries and returned to work and study while her son had pleaded guilty to criminal charges relating to the incident.

She then goes on to claim Ms Campbell had “three sets of lawyers,” denied her original sworn statement that she knew Mr Woollard was drunk, and said she was advised that Ms Campbell was not legally entitled to compensation.

Dr Woollard said her family offered Ms Campbell $100,000 which was twice rejected, but does not detail the conditions attached to that money which Ms Campbell claims are the reasons she turned it down. She also does not mention her son lost the civil trial and was ordered to pay her damages.

“We thought the trial was part of a campaign to vilify our family and force us to pay additional money,” Dr Woollard wrote.

“Last Year Kate said Luke 'needs to be taught a lesson' even if 'it has to be through a two-week trial.' Sadly the end result of that trial, which came at great personal and financial cost to all, is that Kate has been left with no compensation. She is seeking to make Luke bankrupt,” Dr Woollard wrote in the letter.

“Some people believe Keith and I should pay her large sums of money. We are reluctant to do so because it would reward a strategy of targeting the family of the wrongdoer, and, importantly, place other families at risk of a similar campaign.”

Ms Campbell said she was “absolutely astounded,” by the letter.

“It's basically a quarter of the truth,” she said.

“The family own the boat, they didn't insure it, and Luke himself…claimed he was a heavy drinker yet the family were happy for him to use the boat, she hasn't mention it once, in her letter or in any statements.”

She said the reason she has had three lawyers was because her first left the firm and she was allocated another. She said when she could not afford to go to trial John Hammond offered to represent her pro bono. She says Dr Woollard's offer of $100,000 was inadequate.

“This amount she is talking about didn't include any future medical expenses family loss of earnings, my loss of earnings, my parents business loss of earnings, emotional damages, loss of enjoyment of life,” Ms Campbell said.

“She's forgetting the fact that I began this apparent 'vilifying campaign' three years after the accident occurred, that's the fact she's leaving out.”

Mr Woollard has publicly stated he does not have the means or assets to satisfy the payout.

From the West Australian.......

From me.......

I hope the Alfred Cove electorate, make their own minds up about this. Imagine if Kate Campbell wrote such a letter from her view-point and sent it to everyone in Mrs Wollard's electorate. I am personally even more disgusted than I already was.

No wonder the Australian public has no respect for politicians, too many acting in their interest, not the public interest. Was it parlimentary privellege to send out such a letter.....?

See below for the letter my mother sent to her constituency which the article in the West Australian was referencing.

There has been a very public airing of the civil proceedings against my son Luke for a boat crash that occured four years ago. It is difficult to understand the issues based on what gets in the papers and on TV. While it was before the court it was not appropriate for me to speak publicly.

Eight young people used my husband's boat to return home from UWA Tavern late one night. They had all been drinking alcohol and none were fit to drive. None of them saw the unlit pylon near Canning Bridge and the collision left Kate Campbell with severe injuries. She recovered well and returned to work and study. In the criminal trial, Luke pleaded guilty, aknowledged that it was his fault, and accepted his criminal conviction.

Kate has had three sets of lawyers. This year in the civil trial Kate denied her original sworn statement that she knew Luke was drunk. Last year we were faced with the outrageous claim by her lawyer, that her medical expenses were already $300,000. We thought the trial was part of a campaign to vilify our family and force us to pay additional money.

We were advised that Kate was not legally entitled to compensation because she knew Luke was drunk before he got on the boat. Nonetheless we intended to help with her medical costs. It was suggested that $100,000 would be an appropriate offer but she rejected that twice. At trial, her medical expenses to that date were agreed to be $79,000. $17,000 of that had been paid for by Medicare and HBF.

Last year Kate said Luke "needs to be taught a lesson" even if "it has to be through a two-week trial". Sadly the end result of the trial, which came at great personal and financial cost to all, is that Kate has been left with no compensation. She is seeking to make Luke bankrupt. Some people believe that Keith and I should now pay her large sums of money. We are reluctant to do so because it would reward a strategy of targeting the family of the wrongdoer and, importantly, place other families at risk of a similar campaign.

I have done my best to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in the community. I hope to introduce legislation to prevent people driving boats when their blood alcohol is 0.05 or above, as applies in other States. Hopefully this will prevent other people from suffering similar accidents.

The Woollard's just keep on digging! Maybe it's time to pull yourselve's out of the hole before it caves in!!!

LukeWoollard said...

Eight young people used my husband's boat to return home from UWA Tavern late one night. They had all been drinking alcohol and none were fit to drive.

If you werent fit to drive... YOU'RE NOT FIT TO DRIVE ANYTHING! pushbike, horse, boat whatever.

Whats wrong with a taxi?

LukeWoollard said...
I have done my best to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in the community. I hope to introduce legislation to prevent people driving boats when their blood alcohol is 0.05 or above, as applies in other States. Hopefully this will prevent other people from suffering similar accidents.

No no no and no. Does there NEED to be legislation to stop you being in command of a vehicle when your pissed?

Doing her best would have been to stop you from using the boat when your were pissed in the first place, doing her best would've been setting the example in the first place.

You're not the first and certainly not gonna be the last.


Dude, you were pissed, you ****ed up, man up, pay up, and shut up.

dirtyharry said...

dusta said...

LukeWoollard said...

I have done my best to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in the community. I hope to introduce legislation to prevent people driving boats when their blood alcohol is 0.05 or above, as applies in other States. Hopefully this will prevent other people from suffering similar accidents.

how about your mother introduce's legislation for all boat owners to have compulsory insurance when they buy a boat ?

Bloke on the radio made the point today that it's unlikely insurance would have made any difference given that the fella was sauced-up and admitted so.

This is incorrect. 3rd party injury insurance for motor vehicles (compulsory with your license) still covers you when you're intoxicated. Your 3rd party property insurance will not.

dusta said...

www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/woollard-defends-son-family-in-electorate-letter-ng-6ad76cd1ab746e4a89a67b463d5e46f3

so she paid for the letter out of her own pocket and didn't use any official letterheads ?


The letter head looks pretty official to me .

Me too.......
She used her letterhead, I wonder if she paid for the paper or Alfred Cove residents did?
I wonder where she got the database of all the names and addresses for her "personal" letter?
Any queries, contact her OFFICE.......???? So she's going to take calls on a "personal" matter during her work time?
People get sacked for that.......
What a piece of work.

Kids over eighteen, he fks up his problem, any body on this this forum want their parents to fix their adult fk ups ??????

Yeah rite

It seems that lukes mum did support him to the tune of 100g's, before the judgement against luke !

Dave Whettingsteel said...

Luther said...

Kids over eighteen, he fks up his problem, any body on this this forum want their parents to fix their adult fk ups ??????

Yeah rite

Well actually yes! My daughter is 19 and I will support her thick and thin.
I think Luke sounds like a decent guy, who knows he has stuffed up. But his mother seems desperate to defend the indefensible which as a Polly does not work.

The ' we offered 100k, but the court said $200k so we will escape it by bankrupting our son' to a friend who has had her body completely smashed just seems very arrogant.

I'll be generous to her and suggest she has been grossly misled by defense lawyers who do not see the big picture.

But I also think she could look bigger to. I think she is not a big person. Sorry Luke.

Gnarrggh! I'll say it again. Bankruptcy does not negate your obligation to pay your debts. It prevents you from taking on any more debt, and puts your finances in the hands of an administrator, who will ensure the maximum is repaid to debtors. It's not a get out of jail free card.

trevor1 said...

If it wasn't also about the politics and the publicity, then she would have used a different lawyer than Hammond (who incidentally I heard on the radio had a complaint made against him to the Legal Practice Board on this matter).

Maybe you should considere that she chose HAMMOND because unless The Turdard familly she is not made of money, has no access to gov. funded facilities and accepted Mr hammond offer to represent her pro-bona!

Western Australia's ruling Liberal Party is eyeing independent MP Janet Woollard's seat amid controversy over her treatment of a young woman who was almost killed in a boat crash by the MP's drunken son.

The conservative MP has been threatened with legal action over a mail-out to 14,000 households in her electorate last week attacking Kate Campbell, 24, who successfully sued Dr Woollard's son Luke for $230,000 to recover medical bills.

Ms Campbell was critically injured when Mr Woollard, 23, crashed his father's uninsured boat on Perth's Canning River in the early hours of November 7, 2007, after a heavy drinking session.

Mr Woollard received a suspended sentence in earlier criminal proceedings after pleading guilty to causing grievous bodily harm, but he has refused to pay the civil settlement, claiming he has no money.

Dr Woollard and her cardiologist husband Keith Woollard have refused to pay the claim on behalf of their son, despite bankrolling his failed legal defence with a prominent barrister and two solicitors.

After criticism by the state's Labor opposition, Dr Woollard sent letters to every house in her Alfred Cove electorate - covering almost 21,000 voters - claiming her son's civil trial "was part of a campaign to vilify our family and force us to pay additional money".

The letter, which listed her electoral office number on an unofficial "Alfred Cove MP" letterhead, has been referred to the WA Electoral Commission, while lawyers for Ms Campbell have threatened to sue Dr Woollard for defamation.

On Wednesday, WA Liberal Premier Colin Barnett told ABC Radio his party had "a very good chance of winning" Dr Woollard's seat.

"We will certainly contest Alfred Cove," Mr Barnett said.

"The Liberal Party nearly won the seat off her at the last election, so we'll keep trying."

Mr Barnett said Dr Woollard had been supportive of his Liberal-National government, but she had shown poor judgment in using her electorate mailing list to try to appeal to voters over her son's case.

"I think Janet was probably unwise to delve into that situation in that way," Mr Barnett said.

"It's essentially a situation for her son, who - because of Janet's position - is now drawn into a very high-profile public case.

"Janet's been under huge pressure as a member of parliament - I think probably not the best decision to send out correspondence like that to her constituents."

Dr Woollard has been the member for Alfred Cove since 2001, but only won the last election in 2008 on preferences after getting just 25 per cent of the primary vote.

The next state election is on March 9, 2013.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8479588/wa-libs-eye-embattled-woollard-seat

Back to the kitchen Janet

An admission of guilt if ever there was one. They obviously did not want to go to court and have their emense fortune disclosed to the public.

westozwind said...

An admission of guilt if ever there was one. They obviously did not want to go to court and have their emense fortune disclosed to the public.

If the Court conducted a means enquiry, they could only look into the son's finances, not the family's "emense" fortune.

well its not precise.

That would require correct spelling

immense would be suitable in this case!