PRIVILEGE CLAIMED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20221, 3 February 1934, Page 20

PRIVILEGE CLAIMED.

m 1 Refusal to Give Any i Evidence. ; DOCTOR IN COURT. 1 2 Per Press Association. i HAWERA, February 3. i j Declaring that he did not wish to * humbug the Court, a doctor yesterday, claiming the privilege of his profession, 1 refused to give evidence in a case in ' * which a domestic was charged with permitting an unlawful instrument to 5 be used upon herself. The doctor at i e first refused but later consented to be L ‘ sworn. After taking the oath, he said: t “I will see how far it goes.” At the first police question he claimed privi--1 lege and stood down. p ‘‘l know the reason why I have been ' • called here, and I believe myself to be l * quite justified in sheltering behind the r Hippocratic oath of my profession that anything that a doctor may ascertain in the course of his practice is entirely a secret matter between patient and 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 recognise that it is one’s duty as a citizen to give every assistance to the e law. I have to be persuaded that the e ends of justice would be met i.i this n case by any evidence that lies in my n power to give. I do not see where I t can be of assistance for or against in the matter. I did not seek to come e here. I was sent for. It is a shocking t thing to my mind if the public can l~ presume that one’s word is given lightd lv and can be broken in a casual mans ner. British laws are founded largely i- on public conscience and usage, and I s find myself in a difficult position, not ;- being able to take the oath." ° Bench’s Opinion Sought, fi Detective Meiklejohn: Do you refuse a to be sworn? y The doctor: Yes. I wish the bench to 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 proceedings in any way or hinder the Court. The detective: I ask that the witness be sworn. He knows full well that according to the statute he is liable for refusing to give evidence. The bench 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 authority be read 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 as to statements made to him by a patient, however confidential the communication may be, an old authority being the Duchess of Kingston case. Mr R. J. O’Dea, counsel for accused: But that is the law in England. In New Zealand the statute law is different. Mr O’Dea quoted Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1908, which gives - privilege to a medical man in the case of civil proceedings, and argued that the same must apply in criminal proceedings. The doctor: I have given a just reason and 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. The detective: 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. The detective: Did accused visit your consulting rooms on December 3? c Witness: I must claim the privilege of the Hippocratic 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. c

Accused pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail in the sum of £3O was allowed.