29 If the second, third and fourth defendants were not compellable to give any relevant evidence in this proceeding, then it might be that, in reliance upon such cases as DPP v Nicholls,[13] they were not available to give evidence about an asserted fact within the meaning of s 63(1) of the Evidence Act - "all reasonable steps" having been taken to secure attendance or compel the giving by them of relevant evidence. However, s 48(2) only makes members of a medical panel not compellable for the giving of evidence "as to matters in a certificate or report given by the Medical Panel of which he or she was a member". Notwithstanding the existence of s 65(10) of the Act,[14] it may be that on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, a medical panel member could be asked questions of a general kind which might have the capacity to throw light on relevant issues, without infringing s 48(2) of the Act. For example, in this case, it might have been possible to ask general questions (unrelated to the specific medical panel examination) about the way in which notes are taken as a matter of practice. In any event, I am not satisfied in the circumstances of this case that there were not a number of relevant questions that could have been asked of the second, third and fourth defendants in cross-examination by the plaintiff.
