Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POLICE RIGHTS ARGUED

INTOXICATION CHARGE AT HAWERA (New Zealand Press Association) HAWERA. May 18. Whether the police have a right to be present, while a doctor is examining a motorist suspected of being intoxicated was argued in the Hawera Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Tht» Court was hearing a case in which a man whom a doctor had refused to certify as intoxicated was subsequently convicted on police evidence as to behaviour and incidents before being seen by the doctor. Senior-Sergeant Black said that the action taken by Dr. A. G. Buist in asking the police to leave the room while he examined the man was unusual. “The police usually leave voluntarily. I have never examined a patient in the presence of the police.” said Dr. Bui.st. If they did not go. he would certainly ask them to do so. as >t was not only an act of courtesy but of great assistance in the examination. Senior-Sergeant - Black: Do you know it is the duty of the police to be present at such an examination? Dr. Buist: No. I thought they would have faith in the integrity of a medical man. Mr S. S. Preston. S.M., asked why the police had to be present. Senior-Sergeant Black said it was in accordance with their instructions. The police would not make use of anything heard in a conversation between a doctor and the man he wa e examining. The matter seemed to be one of procedure that could be looked into by the British Medical Association and the police, the Magistrate suggested earlier in the hearing. The question of showing the man charged the report of the doctor was raised, the Magistrate asking whether the man should see such a report Senior-Sergeant Black said that the police did not have to show the report. They paid for it and it was for their information. If a man was certified as intoxicated, however, he could get a doctor of his own choice if he paid the fee himself. The finding of the doctor in this case was the man’s property and did not haveto be shown to the police.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19500520.2.13

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26117, 20 May 1950, Page 2

Word Count
354

POLICE RIGHTS ARGUED Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26117, 20 May 1950, Page 2

POLICE RIGHTS ARGUED Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26117, 20 May 1950, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert