58 / 364
OPPORTUNITIES
At the request of the Department of External
Affairs the Secretary attended a reception in
honour of President Kaunda of Zambia at
Iveagh House, Dublin, on Tuesday, z4th
November, 1964.
The Government of Zambia are desirous of
recruiting solicitors and barristers from Ireland
for positions as magistrates, administrative
officers and law lecturers. Enquiries should be
directed to the Secretary, Solicitors' Buildings,
Four Courts, Dublin 7.
EXAMINATION DATES, 1965
Final date
Examination
Dates
for entries
ist Law
...
... ist and and Feb.
nth Jan.
znd Law
...
... ist and 2nd Feb.
nth Jan.
Preliminary ...
... 2nd and 3rd Feb.
I2th Jan.
3rd Law
...
... 3rd, 4th, 5th Feb.
I3thjan.
ist and 2nd Irish
... 12th February
22ndJan.
Book-keeping
... 22nd February
ist Feb.
MEDICAL LEGAL SOCIETY
The programme of lectures for 1965 arranged
to date:
2ist January, 1965 : Lord McDermott, Lord Chief
Justice of Northern Ireland.
25th February, 1965 :
The Rt. Rev. Dr. Simms,
Archbishop of Dublin, on " Conscience ".
25th March, 1965 : Mr. Scan MacBride, S.C., on
" Human Rights ".
THE PRIVILEGE OF DOCTORS IN THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE
The Hon. Mr. Justice Kenny, President, gave an
inaugural address for the session 1964-65 to the
members of the Medico-Legal Society in the Royal
Hibernian Hotel on the 29th October, 1964, on the
subject of " The Privilege of Doctors in the Law of
Evidence ". He said that it was a basic principle in
the law of evidence in Common Law countries that
everyone could be compelled to come to court and
to give oral evidence and generally to answer any
question asked. The exceptions to this rule were the
subject-matter of the doctrine of privilege. Although
the relationship of doctor and patient is a very special
one which required complete disclosure, there is,
under the law of England, no medical privilege as
such. Mr. Justice Kenny pointed out that the rule
did not suit the public interest, that it was English
judge made law and not binding on our Courts and
that judges in Ireland were free to apply a better
rule and to recognise the right of a doctor to refuse
to disclose what his patient had said to him unless
the patient consented to this.
As regards the privileges of the legal profession it
was emphasised that this was primarily the privilege
of the client. All arguments in favour of maintaining
this privilege were even more compelling as regards
the patient in the case of the medical profession.
Other cases of privilege mentioned were those in
which a witness gave evidence and need not answer
questions incriminating himself and State privilege.
Until recently as a result of a misconstruction of the
House of Lords decision in Duncan
v.
Cammell-Laird
(1942) this appeared to be absolute and had been
somewhat modified by the famous judicial dicta of
Lord Denning in the Grosvenor Hotel case, (1964)
3 All E.R. 354, where he pointed out that the
English rule was followed neither in Scotland nor
in the Commonwealth. As Harman L.J. said, p. 363
—" I seem to detect in the official mind a desire to
push ever forward the frontiers of secrecy ". The
position of priests and clergymen still appears to be
rather uncertain despite the decision of Mr. Justice
Gavan-DufTy in Cook
v.
Carroll (1945).
The jurisprudence of medical privilege in England
was then examined and it was pointed out that from
the Duchess of Kingston's case (1776) to that of
Gardner
v.
Gardner (1920) there was a consistent
rule which compelled doctors to answer all questions
put to them. While the privilege of doctors should
be recognised this privilege should last only as long
as the patient was alive. Subject to their not being
unconstitutional, certain matters must be disclosed
if the Oireachtas decides this should be done—i.e.,
under the Health Acts.
In a sensational case in
Australia it was apparently held that a doctor is
liable to be sued for breach of secrecy if what he
stated injured the reputation of his patient.
The lecturer then discussed the difficult problem
which arises when a doctor who is treating a patient
becomes aware that a crime has been committed,
such as attempted suicide or an illegal operation. In
such cases the question was—should the doctor
preserve secrecy ?
The opinion of the British
Medical Council was that in such cases the doctor
should not disclose anything which was learned
professionally. If, however, the offence was a felony,
the doctor was guilty of misprision of felony. The
recent decision of the House of Lords in Sykes
v.
Director of Public Prosecutions (1961) 3 All E.R. 33,
established that a person who knowing that a felony
had been committed, did not reveal it to the police
was guilty of this offence but it was improbable that
54