Confidentiality in a Correctional Setting*
| Date | 01 December 1971 |
| Published date | 01 December 1971 |
| Author | Mary Daunton-Fear,Justice McClemens,R. H. Lucas,F. D. Hayes,A. B. C. Wilsons |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587100400403 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (Dec.,
1971):
4, 4
Confidentiality
In
a
Correctional
Setting*
207
MR. JUSTICE McCLEMENSl, MARY DAUNTON-FEAR2, F. D. HAYES3,
R. H. LUCAS4,
and
A. B. C. WILSON5
A.
Introduction
AT
the
Fifth
National Conference in
Perth
in
1969
aresolution was passed
appointing
a
representative
sub-committee to investigate
and
report
to
the
following biennial conference of
the
council (held in Brisbane
in
August,
1971) upon
the
subject
of
whether
or
not
arelationship of confidentiality
exists
and,
if so, to
what
extent
in
the
following relationships:
Parole officer
and
parolee,
Probation officer
and
probationer,
Prison
chaplain
and
prisoner,
After-care
social worker
and
prisoner-client,
After-care
social worker
and
ex-prisoner-client,
Voluntary worker
and
ex-prisoner-client,
Psychiatrist
and
unconvicted person on
remand,
and
Psychiatrist
and
prisoner.
It
will be observed
at
the
outset
that
of
the
eight
categories
this
com-
mittee
was asked to investigate, seven involved people who
have
been found
guilty
and
hence
are
the
subject
of
the
attention
of
the
correctional
services.
The
ultimate
ideal
in
each
of
those
cases is
the
rehabilitation
of
those
persons to live
again
as
ordinary
citizens in liberty.
It
was suggested
at
the
outset
of
the
committee's discussions
that
con-
fidentiality is
the
quality
of a relationship
that
confers
immunity
on those
involved in
the
transaction
from
an
obligation to disclose
what
has
transpired
to a
third
party.
This concept is
the
basis of legal professional
privilege
and
it
is also a claim
that
is
not
infrequently
made
by
the
medical
profession.
The
committee desires to emphasize
that
in
this
discussion of
confidentiality as
it
may
arise in
the
correctional field,
that
concept is
rejected.
*Areport prepared for the Australian Crime Prevention, Correction and After-care
Council. The authors constituted the sub-committee which considered the
matter
and prepared the report.
1. Supreme Court of New South Wales, Chairman of the sub-committee,
2. LL.M., Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Adelaide, South Australia.
3. B.A., Dip.Soc.Stud., Dip.Crim. (Sydney), Dip.Soc. (N.S.W.), Director of Probation and
Parole Services, Department of Corrective Services, New South Wales.
4. Superintendent of Police, Officer-in-Charge, Prosecution Branch, Police Department,
New South Wales.
5. LL.B., Barrister, Chairman of Prisoners' Aid Association of South Australia.
To continue reading
Request your trial