Acquittal Of Doctor Binds Medical Inquiry

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28742, 13 November 1958, Page 14

Acquittal Of Doctor Binds Medical Inquiry

- z freis Association) ELLINGTON, November 12. ; i' ’ e Supreme Court acquittal l *'»rrg-ley. aged 34, of Wellington, I _ on a charge of indecently --.a-r binding on a medical on the date and in regard i - t —ei did not amount to indecent j - M. e McGregor in a judgwrits sought by Ongley estigation committee from - • -"..r.g on the allegation of an ' -3 of this year.

'.i.- giS : I ILTx-t i ' • 1 . ’ —X: • • xi • ft -’si-r'. n s-umuiioe .•■e-iax-isai nan* <- •easy . - ■ ' •' ' s • • j&ar to r-®»eQ3tt BO!*:’ f .-Kii? - «’ *? tie . tur —' :f tv O- - f “ ■ “ Ttan ..■?!'**’ ■ f*— *> 4 •- ■ »■’. if 3r*nxf 'M no r T r-rmna* T’X-

Hv had not overlooked that the cnarge which might be brought before the Medical Council in : The present case was one of £ "famous conduct in a profes..al respect, whereas in the - earlier criminal proceedings the .r.a.-ge on which the plaintiff was xccuitted was indecent assault. But the defendants were bound the particulars forming the - ais.- f the charge of infamous r.auct -if which notice had been - L-’e ; . to the plaintiff. Those; ■? _x:t.culars. subject to any - . • r.ament which might be pcr-.tt-.-d after due notice to the £ plaintiff. contained the allega- •. "? which the plaintiff was re-, cuired to face. In so far as the complainant £- :-..ed on matters outside the - -a.ge of indecent assault on wh;ch the plaintiff had been 1 : acquitted. the plaintiff could have! • r. *• present complaint, said his i- Honour: but in so far as the =.- facts relating and relevant to the • s.-.a-r charge of indecent assault ere concerned, and relied on as the substance of the charge of "famous conduct, the domestic ~ tribunal was bound by the earlier '• conclusive finding of the Court y and must accept the finding that the plaintiff was not guilty of such charge. "Evidence Rejected” I agree that the charge of infamous conduct in a professional -- respect is one different in substance from the criminal charge -f indecent assault.” said his Horn ur. -• The view I take, however, is tr.at while evidence of an inde-’-e .ent assault may. and in ordinary i circumstances would. havei ? cogency as establishing or assist-; -- .ng m establishing what might well be the broader allegation of .nfamous conduct, the evidence -a A’hir-n would establish such ine decent assault cannot be accepted e when the charge relating to that particular indecent assault has ■-•e already been rejected in a crimmal trial between the same par- ** While he considered the rv plaintiff was entitled to limited -s relief, he did not think he was entitled to either the writ of prohibition or the writ of in’.e junction which he sought. Il ‘ .night well be that while evidr. er.ee at the criminal trial could a not sustain a charge of indecent assault, portion at least of such ax evidence might be relevant to a charge of infamous conduct, in a •• professional respect, with other ly or oetter particulars, excluding the particular allegation in respect of the indecent assault on -j the named date with the named 1 fc? person, he said.