Cherry Farm Witnesses Discussed Evidence (Press, 8 August 1963)

An inquiry into allegations against staff at Cherry Farm Hospital in Dunedin is ongoing, raising concerns of potential conspiracy among witnesses. On 7 August 1963, during the second day of hearings, several witnesses admitted to discussing evidence with individuals who had not yet testified, leading to speculation about collusion. The inquiry, led by Mr W. H. Reid, a solicitor, pertains to allegations against a staff member referred to as “X” and other related issues. Counsel representing various parties, including staff, former staff, and patients, have been involved in the proceedings. Mr Reid has imposed a publication ban on the identities of the witnesses and other sensitive particulars, using letters to represent them. Medical professionals have provided statements on the reliability of patient evidence, which have also been suppressed from publication. As the hearing resumed, staff member “A” testified about a petition he had signed that protested against "selective pin-pricking" of staff member “B,” arguing that such practices would deteriorate already strained staff relations. Another staff member “B,” a nurse, expressed feelings of disloyalty following prior inquiries and mentioned morale issues among the staff. He admitted to discussing a portion of evidence from the previous day with others at his home but denied any intent to conspire. Patients also provided testimonies, with one, “A,” describing instances of favouritism by “X” towards certain patients, particularly those with homosexual inclinations. He acknowledged that a student nurse had encouraged him to come forward with his evidence. Another patient, “B,” alleged that “X” had given gifts to certain patients and had taken one to his home. However, this patient conceded that he had not directly witnessed any gifts being exchanged. The inquiry also addressed allegations from patient “C” regarding inappropriate behaviour by “X,” revealing inconsistencies in his testimony. A further complainant, patient “D,” claimed he was threatened with shock treatment by “X” following disrespectful remarks made towards him—a claim that was corroborated by an assistant medical officer who visited after the inquiry commenced, underlining the tense atmosphere within the hospital. Throughout the inquiry, the focus has been on the dynamics between staff and patients within Cherry Farm Hospital, as well as the potential for improper conduct among staff members. The hearings illustrate the challenges facing the institution, both regarding the treatment protocols and the interpersonal relationships within the facility. As the inquiry continues, the implications of the testimonies may have far-reaching impacts on the hospital's operations and staff relations. The proceedings have been set to resume the following day, with the anticipation of further revelations regarding the allegations made against staff member “X.”

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand