Board’s Reply To Coroner’s Criticism

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30445, 20 May 1964, Page 3

Board’s Reply To Coroner’s Criticism

GVew Zealand Press Association) NEW PLYMOUTH, May 19. It was unfortunate the Coroner should have criticised the Taranaki Hospital Board during an inquest at Wellington into the death of Mr L. C. Clark, when the board had been acting wholly within its legal rights and had made it clear that it was anxious to cooperate, the board said in a statement today.

The. board felt strongly that its action in directing that statements of employees be taken by its solicitors was fully justified and in no way improper.

“It-is a fundamental principle of British law that no person is obliged to submit to interviewing by the. police,” the. board said.

“Although the police may have been making inquiries for the purpose of the inquest, those inquiries could also form the basis of a claim for damages. “In the present case, it was obvious a damages claim was likely to follow, and the evidence given at the inquest could well have a bearing on this.

“It must be emphasised that the board had no intention whatever of trying to obstruct the police. In fact, the bo'ard, acting -on. the advice of its solicitors, directed that the police be -supplied with statements. from all relevant witnesses.

“Those statements, which in no way attempted to minimise the actions of any employee. of the board, were handed to the police, and the police were informed' that any further information they required would be supplied through' the board's solicitors

“If, on another occasion, •the police would* prefer to see the witnesses in the presence of the board’s solicitors, then the board would certainly be prepared to consider facilitating' this.” ' At the inquest at Wellington on April 28 into Mr Clark’s death, the Coroner (Mr L. H. Herd) said the refusal'of the New Plymouth Hospital authorities to allow police officers, carrying out their duties under the Coroners Act. to interview witnesses and handing prepared statements to police, who had no Opportunity to examine ' the

witness, was, in his view, an improper practice.

He said he. proposed to make representations to the Justice Department in the hope that steps would be taken to ensure that the police were not so hampered.

Mr Clark was admitted to the hospital bn August 5. operated on and received nine pints of blood. .A sample of the blood had . been taken from another patient named Clarke in the same ward. Mr Clarke was mistaken for deceased, and as a result a transfusion of incompatible blood was given,