A Tauranga father denied leave by the Supreme Court to appeal a judgment dismissing his claim for damages after his son's heart was taken without his consent is vowing to fight on.
John MacKenzie, 81, alleges his 20-year-old son Kenneth's heart was unlawfully removed after his life support was turned off in Tauranga Hospital on October 2, 1987 - the day after he suffered serious head injuries in a motorcycle accident.
A doctor asked for consent to take his son's heart, but he refused.
I want to prove when it does reach the 'court of public opinion' that there has been a huge miscarriage of justice.
SHARE THIS QUOTE:
Mr MacKenzie last night told the Bay of Plenty Times he planned to contest the Supreme Court's ruling.
"If this is unsuccessful that does not mean that's the end of the matter," he said.
Mr McKenzie said he would lay charges against Crown Law for its handling of this case.
Mr MacKenzie said if those steps failed he would launch a media campaign to garner support for his damages claim.
"I want to prove when it does reach the 'court of public opinion' that there has been a huge miscarriage of justice."
Mr MacKenzie's fight for compensation started almost a decade ago. In 2005, the National Transplant Donor Co-ordination Office informed Mr MacKenzie that his son's aortic valve was removed and transplanted into a 16-year-old girl's body.
The following year, the now disestablished Crown Health Financing Agency informed him it would not offer him compensation. Mr Mackenzie started proceedings against the Attorney-General in 2012.
His legal suit filed against the Crown Law Office was struck out because it was statute barred, despite Associate Judge Roger Bell finding Mr MacKenzie had "an arguable case".
In February this year, Mr MacKenzie unsuccessfully pleaded with three Court of Appeal justices to grant him a full hearing on his $200,000 compensation claim.
In yesterday's judgment, the Supreme Court justices denied Mr MacKenzie leave to appeal application, saying even if the court had jurisdiction to grant leave they would not do so.
"The applicant's arguments seem to come down to the proposition that either there was no cause of action prior to his receipt of the November 26, 2006 letter, or that this letter gave rise to a different cause of action.
"Contrary to the perceptions of the applicant, they do not give rise to a question of public or general importance and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice."