Crown Waives Privilege At Cherry Farm Inquiry (Press, 10 August 1963)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Crown Waives Privilege At Cherry Farm Inquiry (Press, 10 August 1963)
On 9 August 1963, the Cherry Farm Hospital inquiry in Dunedin entered its fourth day, marked by significant clashes between counsel regarding the availability of witness files. Counsel R. J. Gilbert, representing various staff and patients, expressed frustration over the government's "obstructive" attitude in withholding personal files. Gilbert asserted that without access to these files, he was unwilling to continue with the inquiry. G. S. Orr, assisting the inquiry, noted that the matter of Crown privilege would require discussion with Prime Minister Keith Holyoake. Later, J. B. Deaker, representing the Mental Hospitals Division, indicated instructions had come from Wellington to allow access to personal files for counsel, albeit with certain reservations regarding isolated documents deemed privileged. Witnesses were required to formally produce these files under oath, and any publication of the contents was prohibited. The inquiry was primarily investigating allegations of misconduct against a nurse referred to as "X." So far, 31 witnesses had testified, with additional counsels supporting various parties involved. Allegations of impropriety surfaced during the proceedings, specifically made by Nurse "F," who recounted incidents involving Nurse "X" and patients. Nurse "F" described witnessing "X" engaging in inappropriate behaviour with a young male patient and shared complaints regarding personal treatment, which he claimed were dismissed by superiors. This included a statement from "X" threatening retaliation regarding performance assessments. Along with Nurse "F," other patients also provided testimonies. Patient "F" claimed to have observed "X" behaving inappropriately with another patient, while Patient "H" described physical assaults by a nurse. Nurse "H" responded to these accusations, stating that the confrontations were exaggerated. Additionally, Patient "J" brought forward complaints about working conditions and treatment from nursing staff, noting a lack of adequate breaks and a burdensome workload. Nurse "J" contested these claims. Other patient testimonies elaborated further on the alleged neglect and misconduct within the hospital. For example, Patient "K" spoke about delays in treatment for an ear condition, while Patient "L" detailed incidents he witnessed involving "X" and patients in a store, which raised suspicions of inappropriate behaviour. Patient "M" indicated that some patients were communicating in a way that exerted pressure on others regarding their testimonies. As the inquiry progressed, it became clear that issues of trust, accountability, and the treatment of both patients and staff in the hospital environment were central to the proceedings. The inquiry’s ability to function effectively was challenged by the contentious issue of document availability and the claims made by both staff and patients regarding misconduct and inadequate care.
Important Information
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