PRIVILEGE CLAIMED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 54, Issue 97, 3 February 1934, Page 3

PRIVILEGE CLAIMED

A DOCTOR AS WITNESS. REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE. (Per Press Association). HAWERA, Februaiy 2. Claiming ilu privilege ot ;iis profession in that what he ascertained xa the course ct his practice wa.s secret, a doctor, who was called as a police witness, refused to give evidence in a case to-dav bo. ore Justices, in winch a domestic was charged with permitting an ul lawful instrument- *>o be used on herself. ''l know the reason why I have been called here, and I believe myself to be quite justified in sheltering behind the Mippocratic oath of my profession that anything that a doctor may ascertain in the course of his practice is entirely a seer-.;, matter between patient and doctor. That is an old-established undertaking, hallowed by the passage of time, and we.in the profession treat it gravely and respectfully. Of course where the ends ii. justice must be .met we recognise 1* at it is one"s duty as a citizen to give every assistance to the law. I have to be persuaded that the ends of justice would be met in this case by any evidence that lies in my power to give. I do not see where I can be of any assistance for or against in the matter. I did not seek to come here. I was sent i\ r. It is a shocking thing to my mind if the public can presume that one's word is given lightly and can be broken in a casual manner. British laws are founded largely on public conscience and usage, and I find myself in a difficult position, not being able to take the oath."

Bench's Opinion Sought. Detective Meiklejohn: Do you refuse to be sworn? The doctor; Yes. I wish the bench the give me its opinion. Detective Meiklejohn; How long do you propose to crave the indulgence of this Court? The doctor: I have no desire to delay proceedings in any way or hinder the Court. The detective: I ask that the witness be sworn. He knows full well that according to the statute he is liable for refusing to give evidence. The bench considered that the witness would be wise to take the oath, and then subsequently claim the privilege of refusing to give evidence. The doctor: You are quite emphatic on that point? The-bench: Yes. The,doctor: Could authority be read me? The bench then proceeded to read from Archbold's "Criminal Pleading: Evidence and Practice" to the effect that there was no privilege entitling a medical practitioner to refuse to give evidence as to statements made to him by a patient, however confidential the communication may be, an old authority being the Duchess of Kingston case. , Mr R. J. O'Dea (counsel for accused) : But that is the law in England. In New Zealand the statute law is different. Mr O'Dea quoted Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1908, which gives privi-* lege to a medical man in the case of i civil proceedings, and argued that the same must apply in criminal proceedings. _ The doctor: I have given a just reason and ieel justified in refusing to be sworn. Ido not want to humbug the Court, but my difficulty is to ascertain what good purpose is being served. The detective: That is not a matter for you to determine, but for the Court. You are here to give evidence, and I ask you to be sworn. The doctor was then sworn. "I will see how far it goes," he said. The detective: Did accused visit your consulting rooms on December 3 Witness: I must claim the privilege of the Hippocratic oath, the unwritten law, and, as far as I know, the statutory low of New Zealand. That is all I am prepared to say. The witness then stood down. Accused pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail in the sum of £SO was allowed.