POLICE WITNESS

Southland Times, Issue 22240, 3 February 1934, Page 5

POLICE WITNESS

DOCTOR’S POSITION REFUSAL TO TAKE OATHPRIVILEGE CLAIMED (Per United Press Association.) Hawera, February 2. Claiming a privilege of his profession in that what he ascertained in the course of his practice was a secret, a doctor who was called as a police witness refused to give evidence in a case to-day before Justices, in which a domestic was charged with permitting an unlawful instrument to be used on herself. “I know the reason why I have been called here and I believe myself to be quite justified in sheltering behind the oath of my profession,” he said. “Anything that a doctor may ascertain in the course of his practice is entirely a secret matter between the patient and the doctor. That is an old established undertaking, hallowed by the. passage of time, and we in the profession treat it gravely and respectfully. Of course, where the ends of justice must be met, we recognize it is one’s duty as a citizen to give every assistance to the law. I have to be persuaded that the ends of justice must be met in this case. By any evidence that lies in my power to give I do not see where I can be of assistance for or against in the matter. I did not seek to come here. I was sent for. It is a shocking thing to my mind if the public can presume that one’s word is given lightly and can be broken in a casual manner. British laws are founded largely on the public conscience and usage, and I find myself in a difficult position, not being able to take the oath.” Detective Meiklejohn: Do you refuse to be sworn? The Doctor: Yes. I wish the Bench would give me its opinion. Detective Meiklejohn: How long do you propose to crave the indulgence of this Court? The Doctor: I have no desire to delay the proceedings in any way or hinder the Court. Detective Meiklejohn: I ask that the witness be sworn. He knows full well that according to Statute he is liable for refusing to give evidence. The Bench said it considered that the witness would be wise to take the oath, and then subsequently claim, the privilege of refusing to give evidence. The Doctor: You are quite emphatic on that point? The Bench: Yes. The Doctor: Could the authority be read to me? The Bench then proceeded to read from Archbold’s “Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice” to the effect that there was no privilege entitling a medical practitioner to refuse to give evidence on the statements made to him by a patient, however confidential the communication might be, an old authority being the Duchess of Kingston Case.

Mr R, J. O'Dea, counsel for the accused : But that is the law in England. The New Zealand Statute Law is different.

Mr O’Dea quoted Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1908, which gives a privilege to a medical man in the case of civil proceedings, and argued that the same must apply to criminal proceedings. The Doctor: I have given a just reason. I feel justified in refusing to be sworn. I do not. want to humbug the Court, but my difficulty is to ascertain what good purpose is being served. Detective Meiklejohn: That is not a matter for you to determine, but for the Court. You are here to give evidence and I ask you to be sworn. The doctor was then sworn.

“I will see how far it goes,” he said. Detective Meiklejohn: Did the accused visit your consulting rooms on December 3 ?

The Doctor: I must claim the privilege of the oath, the unwritten law, and as far as I know the statutory Law of New Zealand. That is all I am prepared to say. The witness then stood down. The accused then pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail at £5O was allowed.