Before court, or investigator?
I am bemused by the response of David Scott to the matters raised in “How healthy is our hospital?”, the letter by Tony Robinson (Aug. 28).
Mr Scott asserts that on the advice of the legal team at the Ministry of Health, Hauora Tairawhiti has no comment as the matter is sub judice. Mr Robinson says the matter of bullying is the subject of an independent investigation by a Wellington barrister.
The Collins English Dictionary defines sub judice as “before a court of law or a judge; under judicial consideration”.
My question is has Mr Scott been led astray by his advisers? Is the matter before the court or is it with the Wellington barrister as Mr Robinson suggests?
With regard to any comment being in breach of the Protected Disclosure Act, it seems the Act aims to protect people who raise concerns about possible wrongdoing in the workplace. This begs the question, “who seeks to protect who?”