Hearing Of Evidence In Libel Claim Ends

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29239, 24 June 1960, Page 14

Hearing Of Evidence In Libel Claim Ends

(New Zealand Press Association?

WELLINGTON. June 23. The hMrtnr of evidence was concluded In the Supreme Court at Wellington, today, in the action by William Alfred Montague McLean, aged 45, a psychiatric charge attendant, of Papakura, against Truth (New Zealand), Ltd., for £3OOO damages for alleged libel. The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) will sum up tomorrow. Dr. G. L. McLeod, with him Mr I. A. Borrin, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. H. Dunn, with him Mr L. M. Greig, for the defendant company. In his continued cross-examina-tion by Dr. McLeod, Silas Rushworth Martyn, a registered physciatric nurse, and a former member of the staff of the Kingseat Mental Hospital, said McLean came to his ward in response to his ringing for assistance when a patient became disturbed. He thought McLean would have had a good idea of the reason for the bell being rung. Dr. McLeod: I suppose you remember the episode as though it were yesterday. The witness: Yes.

You had a very short period of time, comparatively speaking. in mental hospitals?—That's right. Why, with your limited experience, were you worried this patient might jump through the window?—Because others in a similar position had done that very thing. When McLean came into the ward can you remember whether he went out again or immediately took the patient away?—l can’t remember. It was Roberts who was with McLean in the single room, was it not?—Yes. Visit to Room

Are you telling us that when you went to that single room you distinctly disobeyed a hospital rule that the observation ward must not be left unattended? —I did not break any rule.

Did you have to leave the observation ward unattended when you went to the single room?— Yes. Was there a rule the observation ward should not be left unattended?—Yes.

What was Roberts doing? He was standing behind McLean on the right Was he in the capacity of a spectator?—Yes. It has been said in evidence this patient was transferred on June 28. That is the record?— Yes.

You say this disturbance occurred on the night before?— Yes.

Counsel produced a hospital record book and asked the witness to read the entry marked “day off” against Roberts* name Describing the disturbance, the witness said the patient was lying on the floor and McLean was on his body in such a position that his knees were pinned to the floor. Roberts was standing behind him. Counsel: There was, I gather, at this time, blood on the floor? The witness: Yes.

So, in other words, you could not see where the blood was coming from on the patient?—No Did you not give evidence yesterday as to where this blood came from?—l believe it came from his head.

You persist in saying this man had a laceration in his head?—l assumed he had by the blood on the floor. ’

Did McLean ask you to get something to clean up the

blood?—I don’t know if he did or not.

Position of Log* When the patient was lying on the floor hia lep would be stretched out?— Possibly. Wouldn’t • man who for all this length of time was having his eyes gouged be beating his legs up and down?— Possibly. But you can’t remember?—No. It would be unimportant. Could you have reported this to anybody?—l could nave. To whom did you report it.—

t didn’t. IX . Did anybody discuss with you the evidence Dr. Buchanan gave yesterday?—l don’t think so. Did or did not anybody come out and tell you about the evidence Dr. Buchanan gave.—No. You have no idea what evidence he gave?—Only what was in the paper. I think you made the statement that the P«tient's, I * tlna was obscured with blood?—Yes. Would you as a nurse be in a position to contradict me that no human being with the naked eye can see the retina of another?— The central portion of the eye was obscured and extremely red. When you were on duty you would be getting what are called penal rates of pay?—Yes. What rate would you be getting if you were on leave?—l assume the ordinary rate. So you are agreeing with me that in June, 1953, when all this talk of the patient comes up, you would be on leave? —Possibly. The patient’s record shows a transfer about June 27 or 28?— Yes. You say quite possibly you could have been on leave?—Yes. How would you know about the matter?—l did know about the matter. I was there.

Questioned On Records Counsel then handed to the witness records of pay sheets from the Kingseat Mental Hospital and cross-examined him on them. Counsel: The records you have been shown, ward reports, two large volumes setting out duties, day’s work, annual leave show you were not there in June, 1953? The witness: Yes.

So if you were present at the time you said you were, your only possible explanation would be that the whole of these hospital records are incorrect?—Not necessarily. It is quite customary for members of the staff to come back early from leave to let others get away early. And whom did you relieve if you came back early?—l can’t remember. Louis Brian Hanlan said that until February last he was an attendant at the Kingseat Mental Hospital and was now living in Sydney. The “Truth” article apoeared while he was still there. There was considerable reaction among the staff. “Very Worried”

On his last day at the hospital the witness Roberts called to say goodbye. They talked about the incident referred to in the article, and Roberts told him he was very worried. He asked Roberts if it were true, and he said yes. Roberts said he had been asked to commit perjury, and was going to see his solicitor. Roberts said that McKenzie, the head attendant, had said he would arrange to fix up the patient’s injuries, or words to that effect

To Dr. McLeod, the witness said he wished to continue working in mental hospitals but not at Kingseat. He had been approached to come over from Australia to give evidence in the case.

Counsel: Were you happy at Kingseat. The witness: No. I considered the administration appalling. Were you ever admonished while there?—Yes.

By whom?—Mr McKenzie. I had a Are in my room and I was late on duty. The room caught fire.

Were you ever spoken to by anybody about taking time off to place bets?—No. Have you ever been spoken to about drinking or the effects of drink when coming on duty?I have not. How did you get on with McLean?Not very well. Ralph James Burrell, senior deputy charge attendant at the Kingseat Mental Hospital, said he remembered a paragraph in “Truth” relating to the hospital. He had previously heard about the matter, and had been sorry it was made public. The witness said the attendant Roberts had referred to the alleged incident and described injuries to the patient's eyes. “He said his eyes had been gouged and bleeding and he was

disgusted with the thing himself. He mentioned that McLean had exceeded his duty.” To Dr. McLeod, the witness said he had been in the mental hygiene service three months longer than McLean, but he was not dissatisfied because McLean held a higher position. He (Burrell) and two other members of the hospital staff had been charged in the Magistrate’s Court at Pukekohe with assault, but the charge against him was dismissed. Defence Subnlaalona Addressing the jury, Mr Dunn said that McLean had given a detailed account of a routine Incident which occurred at the Kingseat Mental Hospital seven years ago. ‘‘ls it not much more likely that that episode has been produced to explain away the transfer of this patient from the open ward? It Is incredible that McLean should recall details of a day-to-day operation after seven years.” he said. Mr Dunn said it could be asked why the superintendent of the hospital, Dr. Crawshaw, had warned the attendant Roberts he could give no information about the alleged incident because of the official secrecy declaration. He suggested the superintendent knew that if Roberts talked there was going to be trouble. “In other words. Dr. Crawshaw did not want to know the facts. He wanted to make sure that everything was kept quiet He said in evidence he had reminded the staff of the secrecy declarations, that he had reminded Roberts in particular, but he Mid also that when counsel for McLean approached him he gave information and he knew his staff gave information. “This system of secrecy is a one-sided system to ensure that McLean got the Information he wanted but the defendant got none,” Mid Mr Dunn. Mr Dunn Mid that comments made about rules and regulations at the Kingseat Mental Hospital were not much help. Regulations and rules were as good as the people who administered them. The superintendent had admitted it would be possible for an incident to occur similar to the one alleged. “The strong point of the plaintiff is the records and the routine and regulations. He says, •We have got duty books, leave books and all sorts of books.* It is surprising he did not produce a register of assaults to show that the page for this particular day was blank.”

Plaintiff’s Counsel In his address to the jury. Dr. McLeod said the plaintiff and another wrestler were on the staff of the Kingseat Mental Hospital and both had similar backgrounds. The latter had received an apology, but McLean had not If “Truth” had not been referring to McLean it could easily have given him an apology, and the matter would have ended. It had been emphasised that “Truth” was obstructed in obtaining evidence. “It would almost seem a pity that the whole of this article did not say, ‘We have asked for evidence and cannot get it.’ But they publish this stuff and then say, ‘We have difficulty In getting evidence’.” The hospital superintendent had expressed disapproval because a “Truth" representative went round the hospital before he was informed. It appeared to have been the second visit

It was strange that if there was an alteration in a record book from the hospital, it should be referred to only in counsel’s closing address. The superintendent or head attendant could have been questioned on the subject The incident to which McLean had referred was not a routine one. Because of the increased use of tranquilisers few persons were transferred to the refractory ward.

Dr. McLeod said that Martyn had stated the retina of the patient’s eye was covered in blood and had corrected himself when questioned. “It matters a very great deal, because it means that this man is prepared to tell you anything that he cannot be picked up on The moment he is picked up he starts to flounder,” Dr. McLeod said.