Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and she might have got name suppression, but equally she might not have.
The courts are very liberal with name suppression for victims, and the (non-tabloid) media are pretty good about respecting their privacy even when there's no suppression.
-
I think your daughter is now too educated to post in the Herald's My Views sections on Law and Order.
Not to mention having a far greater level of maturity, by the sounds of things. I won't delve into the mental age issue, either.
Sign her up for PAS instead.
Surely there's some kind of middle ground? Training wheels, as it were. Someone (RB?) said recently that the quality of discussion on here can be pretty high-brow. The intelligentsia of NZ blogging. I think a nine-year-old might find it a bit of a hard slog without a bit of seasoning. Maybe stuff? Though that's not all that much better than YV at times.
-
the reason why action can be taken without a complaint for domestic violence is around issues of intimidation of the victim, isn't it?
Yes, and that's perfectly understandable. The police can act without a complaint, though for minor matters they often won't because of the difficulties of evidence and so forth. But for a case to succeed requires evidence, which this case lacks.
i'd accept that if there is sufficient evidence in the public domain, then the medical records should be private. but if there isn't, then i would think there might be an exception. quite happy with the requirement of a court order as you mention.
Even if Dunne-Powell's medical records were made available under court order, and I'll say again that I think a court would probably be somewhat hesitant to make the records available, what does that prove? That she was in hospital at such-and-such a point in time with so-and-so injuries. There are no witnesses, other than the two parties to the assault, and it's for damned sure that Tony Veitch won't be testifying in his own trial. She might, and if she does then it'll be a slam-dunk, but if not the police are pushing runny brown stuff up a steep incline with a sharp stick. Noting also that the courts would be unlikely to uphold the validity of the privacy agreement if she did testify, because of the public policy implications.
If a victim goes to the police, there's consent for their medical records relating to the incident to be examined. If they're dead, the autopsy is a procedure of gathering evidence and is automatically admissible. If they died before becoming a complainant then it's easily justified to a judge that their medical records for the time in question are of evidential value and should be made available. Similarly if they're in a coma. But what we have here is none of those situations.was the agreement with the confidentiality clause illegal (in that it's an agreement to cover up the crime)? if so, have the lawyers breached their code of ethics by being a part of the process in setting it up?
If there's no illegal benefit involved, I think it would be tending on the white side of grey. If Dunne-Powell got ACC compensation for things other than her treatment, then that would be fraud as someone else has observed. But simply agreeing not to tell people that you got assaulted isn't criminal. There's no legal compulsion to go to the police, so not telling isn't breaking a legal duty.
So, on that basis, no the lawyers are totally in the clear. They haven't been party to an agreement that breaks the law. Maybe if the agreement said things like "Dunne-Powell is to claim all compensation available from ACC, so as not to arouse suspicion," as that would be a contract to obtain fraudulent benefit, but without knowing the terms and whether or not she did get payment from ACC it's impossible to know.
-
then what would be the point of allowing a case to go ahead without a formal complaint, not just in this case but in any case?
If the case can be built and demonstrated with evidence that's publicly available, then where's the problem? A complaint isn't necessary to pull news reports and the like, and that would be the only other evidence in this case.
Not all cases require private records. Many don't. There are also court orders available to compel release of records, but the courts are loathe to interfere with medical records because the doctor-patient privilege is such a precious concept.that law becomes pointless without the medical evidence being able to be accessed. to me there's a public interest argument in a case like this, where the violence is so severe.
Is there? Really? The public might be interested, but is it really "public interest"? The man is scum, to be sure, but how is it in the public interest to override the confidentiality of the medical records of his former partner, who signed a confidentiality agreement, presumably having received adequate legal advice? I'd say the public interest is very much more in favour of preservation of contract and preservation of medical privacy. Overturning those institutions is a big step.
that doesn't mean that those records have to become public documents - surely the rules around suppression can be used to protect the privacy of the victim?
Oh, sure, the court can order that they be filed under seal, but they still have to be turned over to the police in the first place. That's a breach of her privacy, since she hasn't consented. Obviously when there's no way a victim can consent the police can make an easy case to get a court order for access to records, and I suspect that there's a hole in medical ethics to allow doctors to advise the police of a potential case. Absent consent, though, and absent a court order that I can see being very difficult to obtain in this case, her records should remain closed.
-
i'd also be interested in the code of ethics for lawyers, as paul pointed out in the fundy post do they have absolutely no responsibility to report the crime, even as they draw up the settlement agreement around it?
No, is the short version. The long version is found at Rule 1.08 of the NZ Law Society's code of ethics. Disclosure relating to a planned crime is permitted, and mandatory where the planned crime relates to harm of a person. Other than that the exceptions are around mandated disclosure or disclosure necessary for the carrying on of the legal practice (such as determining applicable fees).
So not only do they have no "responsibility" to do so, they have an absolute obligation not to do so unless ordered by a court. Being disbarred is the standard punishment for a breach of client confidentiality. -
surely the police can get access to her medical records from the hospital
Surely not! Seriously, if that's possible in the absence of a complaint I'm disturbed beyond words. Medical records are private! As an example, a friend used to be an Army medic. Access to medical records in the military is treated as a matter of minor classification, major need-to-know, and not even the base commander can get access to the records of anyone other than themselves without permission or a court order. The whole doctor-patient privilege is sacrosanct for a reason.
This is where a potential prosecution will fall down. Without a complaint, unless the police can convince a court that there's a very good reason to be given access to her records they will remain properly confidential. In the absence of those records, the police have an inadequate confession and nothing more.
-
What a splendid idea. Having sat on the jury benches more than once, I think everyone should see inside a courtroom. And not just as a defendant!
About the only thing I think the US school system could possibly teach ours is the curriculum space for civics. It distresses me how little time is given to teaching children about how the system is designed and how the various cogs fit together. As I said in another thread recently, in the once-over-lightly introduction to the NZ legislative/judicial system in Commercial Law 101 here at U.Auck it was blatantly obvious that Kiwi kids learn nothing about it in school, because it wasn't just the immigrants who didn't know instinctively how it all goes.
-
They still use students, and the recruiting is done through student email not staff. I've seen two such campaigns so far, and will doubtless see another before the end of the year. Yes, they do just pick random students and use them regardless of which faculty allegiances they may have.
-
Well, there ya go. I sit corrected. Obviously my friend was getting confused over internal vs external stuff.
-
almost every day I try and get 'real people' to appear, as themselves, naturally, on TV. I know how hard it is. On the odd occasion where I've asked them to say something specific (such as read a line out to camera), it takes agggggggges and the results are very average.
You have them for, what, 15 minutes? Tops? My flatmate's commercial was filmed over three 12-hour days. It's about the same length as the ANZ ad, maybe a touch longer. Your point is valid, but only for as long as you have no time to polish the people who you're interviewing. If you had them for the better part of a working week you could do wonders, I'm sure.
I have a call in to ANZ's Communication Manager right now, to settle the debate
Excellent. Will be very interested to hear what the truth is.