THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1924. LUNACY AND LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18771, 26 July 1924, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1924. LUNACY AND LAW.

The cable message notifying an''apthe, House of;; Lords against the. judgment of the Appeal ,Court in tlae V:famou3 Haniett lunacy case recalls attention to an action that has; excited deep interest in England.; There is ■ an : impressive deYnahd that the Government should institute a searching investigation into, tho working * of thei"-. lunacy laws. The facts of the case are remarkable! Mr. H. S. Harnett,' a Kentish had admittedly suffered from mental trouble as ,the result of an illness. He was certified insane by a: justice of the peace on the medical evidence that the 'English law requires, and in November of 1912 was placed in'the charge of a Dr. Adam at a licensed private asylum in Mailing, Kent. The imprpveraent in his condition was so definite and certain that, after a month's detention, he ; was : given leave of absence for twenty-eight days on probation, in accordance with the terms-of the Lunacy Act of 1890. A few days later he called at the office of the' Commissioners of Lunacy, and there one of the commissioners, Dr. Bond, formed in the course of an interview with him the opinion that he ought not to be at large.! 'Accordingly, he telephoned to Dr. Adam, who forthwith sent two' attendants in a ■ motor-car with instructions to bring Mr. Harnett back to the private asylum in Mailing. During the few hours that passed, before the motor-car arrived, Mr, Harnett was detained by Dr. Bond at the commissioners' office against his will. Subsequently, he was .'removed to another establishment similar to that of MaHing, and was an inmate of several such places in succession. He effected his escape from the last of' them after having been for nearly nine years deprived of his liberty, and was then found by two. medical men to ,be perfectly sane! His sanity has not been questioned since, and is established beyond doubt: He took, action against Dr; Bond for the detention at the commissioners' office, and against the two doctors conjointly for his subsequent years of Incarceration. ' .However well:intentioned. Dr. Bond's, detaining of him was clearly illegal, and Mr. Harnett was awarded £5000 damages. Against both doctors he complained that he was not insarie at that! time, that his leave of absence had not - expired and was not forfeited, and that sufficient care had not been : exercisedVto /establish: his "insanity . then. On this action he was awarded ! £20,000 damages. j '"Biit Mr. Harnett's nuccess was short-lived. Less than two months after a judge and a spejbial jury had found for him, the Court of Appeal tipset the decision- oi the lower court invregard to both defendants. The three Lords; Justices were unanimous. They held that-the damages awarded: against Dr. % Bond were assessed on a wrong basis, and that he was not: liable in the action brought against him in conjunction jwithvc Dr. Adam. As to Dr. Adam, ; he was held to have acted in good faith; prudence' and consideration for the plaintiff Required the taking ofr the necessary steps to secure his. return to the private asylum as. speedily as possible. The^ieave-of-absence ordei? was not absolute j. it simply put in abeyance certain powers conferred through ! the original certificate of insanity, and these might be revived if due occasion arose. A petition to the House of Lords against this decision of tbe ;Appeal Court was. subsequently lodged, and the final word of the Law Lords is awaited with eagerness and concern; Whatever the legal result, public comment in England: shows that there is a widespread anxiety as to, the serious imperilling of individual liberty through :the working of the (lunacy l aw Sv Thisi trial has given full justification for that; anxiety, No , legal argument :! can touch the material fact upon which the public mind' has seized—that a man just escaped frsni a lunatic asyium has been found - to be perfectly sane. The considered judgment of the Appeal i Court : took cognizance of this, although the fact could not affect the legal, decision. ; The court disclaimed responsibility for inquiry beyond the legal points raised, but gave -clear indication as to its opinions on: the broader questions. One Pf the Lords Justices! said that if the inquiry ; were one into the whole working of the lunacy laws, as to? Mr. Harnett there was considerable ground for; saying he was detained as. a lunatic much longer than he ought :i to have been. This case, he added, showed that serious consideration should be given to the question rvhether judicial inquiry into making; reception orders should be more Ibrecise in its procedure, and raised a 'doubt whether the system of reporting and visiting afforded sufficient safeguard against undue prolongation of detention. He was convihped that the .results in this case were sufficiently startling to call for the serious consideration of the legal positions. I Generally, then, the Harnett case has raised serious questions in a matter of great importance.' Lunacy laws are extremely difficult/ to administer. It is , not that, in Dickens' day abuses were so grave as to move him to pillory them in his characteristic fashion. Had he,' done otherwise he would hot have remained the fully human being he-, is proudly remembered to have been. But—in this day comes with a shock from a judicial bench to be told that the possibility :of grave abuse persists. After detention for a Dumber of years among insane persons, a detention ended ,only by escape, Mr. Harnett has i been proved mentally sound, and j.has- -remained, so since. The prei isumption, as press comment in Eng-

land .; emphasises, ■ is that he has been so. for a'very long time. Whatever difficulties of ;administration are in the way, the perpetuation of the possibility: of 'wrongful .detention must riot be allowed to iremairi a blot upon our civilisatibn. | A specii fie complaint was made by the judge who first heard Mr, Harnett's case: "When a man is shut up in an asylum, although he may be a per- . fectly sane man, he is never aHowed to kriow why he is shtit up." This is to treat him worse than a criminal. These things,- iiif '"course, should ! not be allowed to stampede public ; judgment. "Lord Denman's opinion,' •- quoted in' the Appeal Court's judgment in the Harnett' case; should be ;borne in mind : <{ A double protection has to be afforded against improper confinernent on the one hand .and the danger from an un- ; restrained lunatic on the .other.'But the protection of the public is . too dearly bought if it be at the , price of wrong to individuals, and the. public fehat is content to have protection at such a price does not .deserve it.,"- '■ . ■ ' -