THE HARNETT CASE AND THE PUBLIC.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I notice that the medical profession has been vely seriously disturbed by the -verdict in the Harnett case, but I should strongly recommend the heads of the medical profession to examine with care the evidence of certain of the medical witnesses for the defence. The most astonishing feature in the case was the apparent prejudice displayed by some of the medical witnesses for the defence ; which rightly led the Jury to discredit much of their testimony. There can
be no doubt that the jury rejected much of the medical evidence for the defence as unreliable, because of the attitude of the medical witnesses towards Mr. Harnett. His testimony was unshaken, being also corroborated by documentary and independent evidence at every point where it was possible or reasonable to expect corroboration.
In these circumstances, the most serious issues are raised by the 'decision of the Government to indemnify Dr. Bond in the damages and costs. I understand that Dr. Bond is in receipt of a salary of £3,000 a year as a Lunacy Commissioner. I trust that the House of Commons will resist any attempt to pass a Supplementary Estimate to meet this payment until the shorthand notes of the trial, which have been transcribed, are printed and circulated for the information of the House of Commons.
It is, apparently, intended that the taxpayers shall be called upon to finance indefinite further litigation. A more Improper use of public money cannot be conceived than to attempt to secure a reversal of the verdict of the Special Jury in the Appeal Court. It is true that there are strong legal arguments, on the principle of turcus actus irderveniens, for contending that the particular defendants were only liable for part of the injury done to Mr. Harnett ; but, even assuming that the Court of Appeal so holds, the liability then will only be shifted on to other shoulders.
Another remarkablesleature of the case is that Mr. Harnett (perhaps unwisely) was careful to inform the people responsible for detaining him from December, 1912, that he intended to bring actions against everyone concerned " in the detention of a sane man." This promise was treated by the medical officers as evidence of" instability of mind," and of" harbour- ing vengeance" against innocent people. The incidental facts disclosed in the case were. ofa most amazing description. It is quite clear that there is no classification in either the asylums, or the mental homes, and practically no treatment. These mental homes are carried on as private businesses by the doctors who keep them. In one case, where the charge was over ten guineas a week, the doctor was 80 years of age, and the authorized visiting medical officer was a country surgeon.
The inmates of the asylums would seem to fall under three heads : (1) The insane ; (2) The sane who have become insane through their detention ; (3) The sane who retain their sanity, notwithstanding their detention among lunatics. The horrible situation of the second class cannot easily be conceived ; but perhaps the British Medical Association may have a little sympathy for such unfortunate creatures. It is certain that there should be an immediate examination and recertification of all the inmates of the mental homes which are run for profit with only the kind of supervision that I have indicated above.
The legal side of the administration of the Lunacy Law in regard to property is seemingly carried on in a curious way, as will be seen in the following facts which were admitted by the Crown in the Harnett case. Mr. Harnett was a man with an estate bringing in over 11,200 a year at the time the receiver in lunacy was appointed. Yet for four years after the appointment of the receiver he was allowed no money ; and then the princely sum of 2s. 6d. a week was granted to him. On one occasion he desired his solicitor to visit him, which would have cost a sum of five guineas, including all expenses. This expenditure was not permitted by the Master in Lunacy. It was also sworn to that Mr. Harnett was never visited by anyone for two years ; yet the statutory duty of the Commissioners is to see that the person applying for the reception order, or some substitute suitable to the patient, should visit the patient at least once in six months.
I have written at this length because it is an awful fact that this state of things should be permitted to continue while the Government spends more of the taxpayer's money in the hope of snatching some technical reversal in the Court of Appeal of the verdict and judgment entered in this case. Mr. Har- nett's correspondence and diaries disclosed the conditions prevailing , in these asylums and mental homes. It was for the jury to estimate all these matters. In my humble opinion, with some special means of knowledge, I think the verdict was a right and righteous verdict, and the Government should take action accordingly.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Mr. Norman is alone responsible for the statements made and inferences drawn. They are, however, no more severe in general than the comments of the Judge who conducted the case with such impartiality and such care for the public interests involved. We wholly agree that matters cannot rest where they are, and that with a view to a comprehensive .reform of our Lunacy laws Parliament should have a com- plete shorthand report of the evidence placed before it. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
