I

.

,^

,I

,

.

,

^

^

^

asc890049

^

THE 2nd NORTHERN TBRRTTORY INDONES:::\N CRT}-11NAL LAWYERS

^

,^

CONFERENCE BALL

"FORENSIC USE OF THE SUBPOENA IN CRTt. 11NAl, PROC!SEDLNGS"

,^

^

,^

caLLed mai. ritenance ".

"What a inari does by coinpuLsi_on of Law cannot be

^

a dLssei:tati. on

30 APRIL

proceedings .

hi. stori. caL background to understand why and how a particuLar

^

7 MAY 1989

procedure deveLoped.

on

^

This may' be a strange \. Jay to coinJnerice

the use of subpoenas

..^\

But I. t Is aLways usefuL to Look at a

,:adj. caLLy

^

much of the earLi. er peri. od the jury were part invest 19ators,

^

part fact ^i. riders .

over

the contrary they

sever aL hundred years o^ EngLi. sh Law.

We know that the jury system changed

^

Ln

Local. knowLedge o^ the facts,

committaL

make ^ui:theI:.

^

they questioned were riot expected

They were riot remote from the

were

evidence .

^

chosen precisel. y because of th-..;IT'

LnquLrLes

Jindeed a person who came to court to VCI\!riteer

as

and

the, / wished .

they couLd, and oft, ,n did,

For

,

I. s sue .

Co Come to collrt to C;I\'t=

But :such

On

persons as

^

I

\

I

^.

^.

11'.' I <3 eC(: I* '.'Jus

^

:liedd Lt= I: .

.^

Cor maintenance I. e. undue Interference In the court

^

looked on ,.*'Ith qreat disfavour as a dangerous

lie stood cons:. derabLe I:'Lsk of being himseL^ sued

processes .

judge satd :

..-\

.^

11n 1,450 It

^

LS

"I:f he had come to the Bar out of his own head and

^

reported

spoken for

^,

Ile WILL be punished for It"

Ln

-.

the Year Books that a

,^\

quoted

one or

^.

BOLdsworth H .F1. I, . VOL TX 1.82-185) .

Ln

the other i. t is matntenance and

Wi. ginore VOL VTLT para 2190

fact finders on evidence pLaced be^ore them by wi. triesses, I. t

^

As the modern concept developed, and jurors became

was

^

necessar>, to reverse the earLLer di. sappi:oval of

witnesses and protect them from sui. ts for maintenance.

(Y. B. 28 H. VL 6, I

^

Hence the quotation at the commencement of thi. s paper.

If <1 witness were ^g^;^.

.~

see aLso

to come to court he must

,

For

""""""~,, F. -.-.,*^,~-^....:,-*,'

^

.

^

\

,

^

^

necessarLLy

^

gratui. to us

I'

^

.

oe acqu It tuc!

act.

^

statutory oftence of perjur:,,,

.,,-\

\

^

The statute of ELi. ::abecli 1562-3 which created the

wi. .triesses duLy served with process to attend and testLt*,

CL , :; '.'

^

shouLd be Itable to a penalty

L:; tLF. t

^

puni. shident) 1:5 they di. d riot appear,

" ,\. \-

therefore adopted the process

^

,. I':C!\i! t I

estabLi. shed

^

p. 185 )

Wd :5

^

11L;; IJw:\

.^\

the LLrst

onLy Later on behalf of the accused in cri_minal. cases;

.

^

Ln

ThLs procedure

because of the earlier rule that. a person accused or crime

Chancery .

IL .12 .

^

to provid, : chat

couLd riot caLJ. witnesses or give evidence himseLf.

sub

^

onLy at the begLnni. rig of the 18th century that di\ accused

or

PCenu

(1101dsworth 11. E. L. VOL 1:1:

The common Law courts

subpoena already

was

^

\. JaS

appL i. ed tit. I:'s t

UTldGL

aLLowed to calL wi. triesses

attendance .

^

nearL, / two more centuries before

^

(Wigmore

civil cases and

VOL \/LIT

ano,

compel their coinpuL SOL",'

paret 2190)

it: was

;:t= ,. vas aLLowc:d to qL. ., c

*

J

It too};

.

.

^

,r

^

^

evLdence himself; a ri. 91'. I: whLch :ridn. / great advocates

^

time, such as MarshaL1. 11aLL , consi. dered to be of dubious

^

vaLue .

^

,

^\

^

step was to determine what evidence such witnesses could

Once an accused could subpoena witnesses, the next

g:.. ve; for the Law recognised

^

these were onLy swept away coinpai=actveLy recentLy (e. g. the

^

incompetency of spouses

^

others reinai. ned, but the rati. onaLe for excLus:_on changed.

The most i. riteresti. rig exampLe

Or

professi. on aL prtvi. Lege .

.-\

tile

^

varLous

PCi. vi. Lege, and was based

to

honour, the Lawyer should not be compelled to di. scLose the

testi. fy agai. nst each other) :

excLustons .

^

secrets of his CLIent.

favour of the modern view that it

^

was

Origi. naLLy thi_s

freedom of consultati. on between Law>, ex' and client and,

Some of

^

the concept of Legal

therefore, It Is the client':= pri. vilege .

on

^

the concept that,

VZ^T paras 2290-2291 )

.^

Later that concept

was the Lawyer ' s

as a matter of

Ls necessar\,

\. ra s repudi. ated

to promote

.\

( See 1,119morr: \'o1

Ln

.

.

^

,

,

.

^

di. ^^exence

Tt. was, however, recognised chat tile::,: \-i's no

evidence and caLLi. rig him to produce documents.

^

the search

i. . n

^

prt. ncLPLe in calLi. rig <1 wi. triess to gLve

Wi. 000Ze

,-.\

^

possessed by physi. caL control Is no di. fferent jizom the

a. s

sa. vs

for evi. dence

^

91. vi. rig up of data possessed as mental Impressi. ons"

,(VOL VTLL

^

can be, of course, a consi. derabLe difference once the

wi. triess attends ; for Ile may be Inex'eLy the custodi. an of the

^

Ln

documents he produces, and be uriabLe to gi. ve any evi. dence as

para 2193) "To give up facts

the witnesses ' possessi. on .

to the truth of thei. ,: contents,

^

-\

writch they

^

I

Zn each case

^.

were

^.

Icecogni. sed, the Law i, s not free of diffi. .cuLt. \,

created .

P. s

ALthough the general. xi. ght

appLtcati. .on .

others, the Law had to balance (lift;ex'Grit concepts based on

^

or

There

the broad grounds of pubLi. c POLICY.

the ci. TCUmstances

^

This

^

J. S because ,

to

Ln

subpoena

I. n this field,

z. s now

Ln Its

as Ln

What he, s changed ,

>

so many

Ln

^

,

^

many cases,

.^

i. nst. ance

^

professi. on aL prtvi. Lege, moving,

Is that unruLy horse pubLi. c POLLcy.

^

LS

honour, to recogni. ti. on that a Lawyer

the exampLe T have al. ready gi. ven of LegaL

^

lid. s cLi. ent. (and there::ore i. n the broad sense the community)

,.^\

^

i. ^ the cLi. ent

^

^ear o^ atscLosure.

^

the prt. vi. Lege..

LS

1.4 QBD 153 deci. ded that In a CLI. ent. appLi. es to a SOLi. ci. tor

^

from a rationale of personaL

^Lee to gi. ve him the EULL facts wi. thout:

ifoic advi. ce triterided to factLi. tate the conuni. SSLon o^ a crime

^

An obvious

.,

.,

Or

The Leadi. rig case of R V Cox & RatLton (1884)

But pubLi. c POLLcy di. ctates Li. ini. t, s to

^

can

^3:aLid, the SOLi. ci. toIC betng i. gnorant on the purpose for

,-\

which the advice

onLy properLy

pi:. i. vi. Leged .

^

authori. by, :501:' i. t. was a unanimous deci. si. on of

^

serve

10 judges sitting

.

I. S

Tnci. dentalLy thi. s must be a

^

sought, the communication i. s not

They must have been Leisurely times to spare so many judges

^

from thei. I:. other duties.

^

as the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.

^

case of great

no Less than

6

^

,.

^

^

^

of a child wi. L}. prevail

^

So, aLso,

SOLi. ci. to IC can be compelled to give evidence of hLs client' s

^

address, I. f known to hi. in, If the CLIent has taken and kept a

^

as a nlatter on

chi. Ld

,^\

\^

(1980) 146 CLR 141.

Ln breach of a custody order.

over

^

public POLLc}',

pronesstonaL prtvLLege.

^

probLems

-~

Tt i, s this sort of confLi_ct whi. ch gives rise to

of documents which in:. qht. assist the conduct of the defence;

^

tile we lidZt':

Ln

but whi. ch, i. t

the criminal Law when subpoenas seek production

^

professi. on aL prtvi. Lege

,.-\

R V BOIL ex. 0. Lees

;\

of Chi. s paper that, provi. ded a proper basts

^

LS

grounds

cLai. med ,

^

ini. ght asstst the

I. S

^avours, though not excLusi. veLy, tt. ,e production of such

^

shown that the production of the documents sought

are

Or

documents over the cLai. ms for privilege .

protected by Legal

public interest.

nati. on aL sec\Iritv

^

case for the defendant, public poLi. cy

lit i. S the the SLs

LS

On

in, ,, oked WILL usual Iv be subjected

reasonabLe

Even cases where

to

.^

,.

.~

^

the scrutLn, / 0,

indi. vi. dual agai. nst. those of the State.

^

(1978) 1.42 CLR I: I\lister v R (1984) 154 CT, R 404 .

^

cases

t. Re courts 1:0 balance trite

^

such as Asiatic PetroLeum Coin an

i. LLust. rate a signLfi. cant shi. ft

I. \

^

;;. 211^E;.^^.;}.:, (1916) I KB 822 and Duncan v cainmeLL Lai. I:d (1942) I

.-

ALL ER 587 where i. t

^

assurance from the executive that producti. on

^

documents would be contrary to public interest was

rLgi\CS

Sankev v F1hLtLar:,

^

concLusi. ve .

GE

warti. .me exi. genci. es, but the Later cases emphasise that a

seems

t. ,I a

Ln

"*

V t\n

emphasi. s ^rom cases

bLanket. assertion of this nature wi_LL riot normalIv deter the

to have been accepted that

^

Those cases may be understandabLe because of

10-Persian OIL

court fron\ examLnLng Its validi. ty.

'I'hose two

^

.~

^

countered by a wi. der public i. riterest.

^

The claim for Legal. professi. on aL privilege can be

Or

one

the

a mere

familiar to Terri. tory Lawyer's .

^

the cri. in InaL fi. eLd I think the prtnci. PIes

.-

The Leadi. nq

ALthoug}: It

case Ls

o,J

are

Ls not Ln

suffLCLentLy

^

,

^~

^

wideLy stated to Include

^

11i. gh Court that the doctrLne of Legal pro^essi. onaL PELVLLege

^

J. S ,

^

Zn

to aLL forms of coinpuLsoi:y disclosure o:5 evi. dence.

the absence of any statutory restriction, appLi. cab!. e

.^

Bake, r v Cam beLL (1983) 153 CLR 52.

^

^

^

Vie 113, ., e the aut. 110ztI:,., of the

--

TeX'ri. tor ) v Kearne

The case T re^ex' to

that LeguLati. .ons were made

^

the Town Planni. n

^

substanti. aL areas of Darwi. n and Katheri. ne under those Acts.

^

^~

Tf the reguLati. ons

(1985) 158 CLR 500.

^

LS

both areas by the Northern Lands Counci. I could riot be the

Attorne -GeneraL (Northern

^.

Ordinance and the PLanni. n

subject of a cLai. in under the Abori. qi. naL Lands Ri. hts

Ln

^

(Northern TeX'xi. tor ) Act of the CommonweaLth.

the Northern TeX'Litor\, under

^

were

contention of the Northern Lands CouncLL that the

You WILL remember

vaLi. d, parts of the Land cLai. med In

reguLati. ons were made for an extraneous purpose, to defeat

^

actual. or apprehended claims under the Abortqi. naL Land

Act bringtrig

^

Tt \Ias the

9

^

.

.

,

^.

Ri. hts Act .

^

Northern Land CouncLL (1981) 151 C:, I^ 170 the High Court held

^

that i. t was open to the Coalmi. SSLoirer to

^

Ln earLLer :Jrcce, ~., L::t:;: A ,.' Toohe, ,' Ex .

of the LeguLati. on making power,

^

Counci. I. was entitled to chaLLenge the LeguLati. ons

^

^

.

ground that they

^

tradi. t. i. on al. Land claims of Abortgi. naLs .

.^

therefore made In that case that the Northern TeXri. Corv

Government make discovery of documents reLattng to the

^.

were

maki. rig and bi=i. rigi. rig i. nto ^'orce of the LeguLati. ons.

.-

made for the purpose of defeating the

and that the Northern Land

..

atei. davi. t of di. SCOvery

,

examLne

D.

.^\

whi. ch prtvi. Lege was cLai. med

^

the exez.'ci, se

cont. at. ned confidenti. al. communications between onfi. cers of

the Northern Territory Department of Law and the Northern

^

TeX',:I. tory Mintsters

On

Orders were

was

the

ordered the documents to be produced for inspection.

duLy fi. Led

^

DLSL

on

sought and granted, prohLbi. ting further proceedi. rigs .

^or 1.11:'i. ts of Prohibiti. on and Certi. orari. were then

^.

the ground that the documents

Ln

or

KeaJ:ney ' s

^

public servants .

An

case z. .n

The Commissioner

10

Orders

In tile

^

..

^

^

FederaL Court the Orders were <13.5chazged and

Court the deci. 510n o:5 the Federal Court was d:Eijirmed.

^

majority of the Federal Court (Woodward & Neaves JJ) heLd

^

that i. ^ the Northern Territory Government coul. d cLai. in the

privilege i. n the ci. I:'cumstances (as to which they seemed

."*

^

doubt::\IL

^

pubLi. c interest .

^

- see

^

55 ALR at p. 556) It was displaced by tile

^

Ln

Their Honours said :-

the 11 1911

"The coinmuni. ty' s respect :;or and observance

^

,..\

Law wi. LL not be enhanced by the Law i. tseLf casti. rig

.

^

a shroud of secrecy around the subord:. nate Law

The

^

maki. rig process, and to do so \-;0\ILd subve, :t the

^

prtnci. pLes upon. which the prtvi. Lege

^

of these two judges at p. 556;-

^

Tt i. s, however, Important to note the observations

^

^

or the

LS founded "

I I.

^

..

.

-^

,^

^

^

^-

"ThLs however Ls :lot to

to be displaced by a mere assertion that a

^

statutory power has been exerci. sed for all ulcer to I:'

,..-.

^

purpose .

^

assertion but,

^

A proper basis must be

for the IDLi. nci. PIes of IeqaL professional privilege

:; a ',' tit :it tilt:

to operate to protect from disclosure docur;.. ents

^

relevant to the proper resolution of that Issue"

once

TIE' L '.' L , C, C

It L :;

.^

Brennan JJ agreed, also held that

shown, there is no scope

^

s n o\-in

I. S

.

GLbbs C .J. I. n the I{i. gh Court, vrLth whom Mason and

for such

^

^

an

"Tt would be contrary to the publi_c Interest which

^

the prtvi. Lege

admin Is CT'atton ot

Co protect coinmuni. CULLon:s niade to further a

LS

deLi. berate abuse of stabutor. .. bower and

designed

Jus tLce

Co secure

to alLow It to be used

the better

12

I\ . ,,, ,

,nilac

^

.

.

,

^

^

.^

^

abuse 1:0 preve:\c others LEOm exerCi. SLn;; their

^

zLg!It, s under the Law"

^

warned that, "the prtvLLt*go

.-\

^-

di. spLaced by making a mere charge

or, as In the present case, that powers have been

^

exercised by

^

(p. 515)

exarr, a. ne

^

ALthough thi. s case was concerned with the power to

that a broad prt. DC1pLe may be derived that a CTai. in of LegaL

^

Is, Of course, 110t

an

the making of suboi:dLiiate Legi. SLatLon I: consider

However he too

pro^essi. on aL prtvtLegc may be examined and dented i. f a

uL t:ex' ICE purpose "

^

proper basis can be estabLi. shed that the prtvi. Lege- may be

^\

^

or crLme or

being used for an ulterior or improper inoti. ve.

^

words o^ thei. r Honours Woodward and }leaves JJ It seems weLL

.

--

wi. thi. n the PELnci. PIe that a "shroud of

t:Eaud

be urinecessari. I, ., cast

cri. ini. naL tri. aL .

^

cannot be properly taken.

^

^

That i, s riot to say that the prt. vilege

over prosecutLon documents

Using the

secrecv

There

should riot

:! re obvious Ly po LLCt. !

Ln a

13

^

.

..

^

^

^

coiniiIunlcE'. ti. ons ..*':\ L. a rid'/ Lo, !:procedures and

they become known to professiona:. cr:. minaLs .

^

I. n^ormants may be put to consider abLe personal XIs}: If their

^

i. denti. ty be known.

.^

to draw but we do riot 11ve

.^

^

as one can

^

those vi. ews are, "the Less concealed the better".

^

t. hI. s

The Line WILL always be a attic:. cult. one

judge generaL pubLi. c vi. ews, T wouLd beLi. eve that

^

i. nformati. on LegLSLati. on throughout AUStraLLa.

a. . S the rationaLe for the growth of ^reedom of

aLso Ites behind the approach of the 1/19h Court

t. !\ tt Ir

^

Ln

ALi. ster v R that the court WILL riot normally accept

a Police State and,

'., a I '.:.\

Some

-\

executi. ve cLai. in for tnnuni. ty wi. thout. ItseLf exami. ni. rig the

^

documents on which that cLai. in i, s based.

^

Brennan J. at pp. 455-6, and particuLa, :Ly his vLew that "Tn a

^

CLI. ini. naL

Ln so

^.

approach to the Inspection

far

case

^

T think

I t.

^

11 think i. t

LS appropi:i. ate to adopt a

^

a. . n

See the remarks on

OL

an

documents by the court"

more ILbei:aL

14

,E. g. =,-,..*.~"--. .

^

. .

,

^

^

^

^

ini. ddLe course

" PubL IC Later CSt prt'.'LLCge' It. kewi. se

^

Conwa

^

v Ri. lamer (1968) AC 910 :-

Ln

,-\

^

the manner discussed by Lord Reld

^

" The :: e

^

be done to the natton or the pubLi. c

.

LS the public interest that harm shall riot

di. scLosui:e of certai. n documents, and there

pubLi. c trite rest that the admLni. strati. on o:5 justi. ce

SCOCTS a

shaLL not be frustrated by the wtChhoLdi. rig of

,-\

documents which must be produced i. f justice

^

Ln

be done ."

^

I at 38-9 (per Gi. bbs Co') and the conrients of

^

O'Leary J (as he then was)

See also Sanke

sexv, .. ce

21 NTR 11 at 19.

^

by the

subpoenas have been issued

L,

^

Z turn therefore to the more SPCCLfi. c cases \*, b, exe

to compel dLscLosure of InformtILLon

tlIe

v Ithi. tLam (1978) 1.42 CLR

possession of the prosecution.

Ln

i, s to

R V Robertson (1983)

Ln CLImi. naL proceed trig s seeking

Or docu:Tien CS

15

Ln C I', t:

,

*.,..... ~.*,.'

,

^

.

^

^

^

the de^endant. served on the Comintssi. onei: of POLLcte a summons

^

I:n R V Cabi. I. L (1985) 61 ;\CTR

to produce statements made by complainants.

^

was

^

taken that LegaL professional prtvi. Lege applied .

riot disputed that there

A^

between the i. nt;ormant and the Crown Law authori. ti. es.

.^

magistrate before whom the charges

^

order for production of

7 the s o I :. c I to I= 15

was

^

the necessary Legal relationship

that the magi. strate di. d

^

On an appLi. cati. on for prohibiti. on GaLLop J. heLd

^

Commissioner of Police to produce documents

The objection

..

^

the statements.

the question whether the documents should be produced.

^

Hi. s Honour took tile view that Legal professLonaL privilege

were

^-

,it was

had been estabLi. shed .

betnq heard made

riot

^

Ln concLudi. rig that the evidence of one constabLe had Left

Lack jurisdiction to requi. re the

The

hi. in In doubt whether the sole purpose of gett. Ing certain

^

statements was for the purposes set out in Grunt v Downs

^

an

Ile heLd chat the inaqLstrat. e had erred

nor to decide

But

, I

LU

..-

,

.

.

.-.

^

^

(1976) 135 Ci. R 674,

into exi. stence for chc SOLe purpose of betng submi. t. to <1 to

LegaL adv:. sers for ad, ., Ice

Honour was sati. sfLed LITat they did come Into tilts cateqory

^

and made absol. ute the ordcr tor Drohibiti. on .

. .~.*.

.-.\

1:1^..! t all. , documen t:s !I'd been Dr. uqh t

therefore this

^

estabLi. shed within the LULLiiq Grant v Downs . See also

R V Dainei: (1988) 78 ACTR 25.

or use Ln

^

case turned only on whether the prtvtleqt^

Legal proceedings

profess10naL prtvi. Lege

^

,

..-~\

The case i. LLustrates a SLmpLe SLtuattori ,, 1/1ere Legal.

and no reason was shown

^

signi. ^Lcant i, s Ills Honour':s comment that "there was no

^

.

evidence of duaLLty of purpose"

111.5

Basically

^

the cases T have already referred to that It

was

^.

mereLy to seek documents \frieze prtvtLege

properly cLa Lined and established ,

^,

TOE'

showing

was

displacing It .

^,

suspected that some \:Iteri. or incti. ve existed .

some basis upon trillch it might reasonabLy be

Th i. s

What i, s

LS cons I stent wi. tti

LS

:. s

riot enough

claimed .A, ithout

.-^,

,

.

^

.

.

.

,

I^

.

,-.

^

(1984)

-..

Ln

the Federal Court was riot sati. SEIed that LegaL pro^essi. on aL

^

his ';udqment 111.5 110nouz referred to ChotJ V Q\11nn

21 ACR 447.

iron, und. t. y had been made out .

^

at Least one purpose ui'IderLyLng the preparaCLon

,..-\

^

statement sought by the defence

That was a case where the FULL Courc of

^

the wi. triesses .

^

the ki. rid necessaz'y to be est. LibLLshed to make out a cLaLm for

.~

Legal. profess10naL prtvi. Leg*:! (P . 458)

Beaumont J. took the ,Itew t:hat

refused to upset the magi. stirat:e' s decisi. on to refuse access

^

Ile considered that such a

to the statement;

^

^

way o^ judi. ci. aL review under the Judi. ci. aL Review Act and

was

that ,

to obtain tinmuni. t\, for

^

reLat. ton to committaL proceedings, those powers should be

.

Ln

^

On

GE a

respect of the Court' s

exei:ci. sed onLy

the basis that the proceedi. rigs

purpose Was Itot Or

^

^

However the court

,

Legal professional pr tvi. It:qe

^

Ln the most exceptional

However, quite apart from over ridLng the cL:1:1n of

exercLse oz

were

i. ts

by

powers

cases .

vine re :;or. e

Ln

uL ter Lot motive

,,

, .,

Can

A

^

I .

^

^

^-

be shown there would

documents call be dLscLosed

^

withi. n the Grant v Downs prtnci. PIe

^

(1972) 2 ALL ER 1192 has riot,

^

been specificaLLy followed : but

5<2,111 to DC *

I~\

Tt. was a deci. SLon of a SLngLe judge on ci. ECUi. t faced wLt. 11

the usuaL diffi. cuLti. es of research

C','en

^

:\:Lither

The deci. si. on was ,

,Z

^

any authority ,

the pri. vileqe i, s weLL

Das Ls

WOE'1<,_rig on what he conceLved to be tile EULes

^

so

The case o^ R V Barton

on willch

far as my researches show,

jus tice.

^

nor

as

^

SOLi. .ci. .toI:' who had been subpoenad by the Crown to give

and Ills Honour said that he ,Nas therefore

has IC been overruled.

lits lionour conceded ,

^

evi. dence at the trigL, and

The facts were that It was beLi. eved that a

^

SOLi. ci. tor for the accused, had possessLon

I. n those circumstances .

certai. n docuntents relating

^

whi. all did not apparently have any connecti. on wi. th the

riot

^

charges against the accused .

supported by

aLLeged that certaLn of those documents would he JP co

was

Or

Later subpoenad by the

naturaL

to w Lnd i. rig

as

Do

CounseL for the accused

,

a sol. JCLtor

of certain estates

or

19

.

^

,,

.

.

~

^

^

turtl'Ier a point raised

--

SOLi. ci. to I:', as L chi. nk he was bound to do, claimed prtvLLego.

^

Caul. tieLd J. took a robust \, Iew.

^

documents in the possessi. on or control of a SOLi. etcoz which

^

on

I'\

producti. on tieLp to further the defence of an accused inari,

^

Ln

then i. n my judgment

hL:s client' s defence .

^.

concei. ve that our Law would permit a SOLi. ci. toi: or other

person to

to the jury \YouLd perliaps enable a

^

"11::", he said , "there

his

screen

no

^

prtvLLege attaches .

I. rinocence or to

The

from a jury Informati. on which, I. ^ discLosed

.-\

^

pecuLi. ai: ^acts .

^

Perhaps the

prtnci. pLe that

restst

are

person may prevaLL over pro^essi. onaL prtvi. Lege, properly

taken, i. ^ i. t. can be showii that the Investigation ini. ht

T cannot

an

^

aLLegati. on made by the Crown"

inari

case

But It could be the foundation of a wider

either to estabLi. sh

assLst the defence.

^

an

shouLd be restricted to its own

i. I^VCs ti. .gati. on

404 Gi. bbs CJ was dealing \-JLth a very dt'fezent situation a, d

^

011 behaLf of

I:n ALLStei: v The Queen (1984) 154 CT, R

an accused

20

^

^

'I \

q

.

^

^

^

was d:. scussLnt; a .;u. _,.; t ,_,:~

Nevertheless ,

^

^

^

dt

I~\

1.1. * ,I ,

^

" ' It

,r

^

tile balmic I. rin

tovouz of disc::i\',, zy L:

11x:; 110;I^^\, ,

^

to

' :'. .L. ,L* .; t

suppor I: t. .he defenc ,.,

^

L i. b e r t, .,

EC::I. E' :: 1. <; :

DrOCC:;.;,

CallLfi. eLd J .

^

. ..,~., ~ . " ....~ .

"Is <1C

That may Lend

case for you to consLdL:L' I=Lther

tl'. U :5CL11U;; 1/11::'t

^

CiiL: ticx:\linen CS ,. ri: :11:u. S. ,!.",'

Stake Lit a GELmi. ridL trLdL"

I~\

bomb .

^

o1: an aCCUSCo

Otherwise, 11 do

^

some

:;WLntl In

^

support to the approuch of

professional prLVLLege

Fur so:\ \vilose

^

AssumLng

dUCeS t. CGuni

no more

^

Ln

tt .

CLVi. I proceed ings .

nO

thaii Leave Burr. on '

usefulI\, set out 111 I'd incl *., litLL (:';731

^

a spent

ob, ect. Lon

Ln CrLmLU, L

.-

L. S

F

EUst: I)r u cLmL:

taken ,

or

.

proCC, =<11nr:s has the

pubLi. c trite rest oL' ICcaL

:;

The st<:ps

trio Lssue o=

L ;I

, :;U~. oe:*. a

the

.=L, I. .t. . L. _ ,Re:, \. ~,:

Fix'OC*:GUEQ aZ;'

: 1:3\.,;,;;! 37:, .. ,

.~

^

.

.\ \

.

^

^

.^

^.

..~

ObedLcr:ce

^

:>ZLngLi;\; Clie docum*111:5

I~\,

^

Litcrr! to the

co t. :I. :

'I,. .

..\:o:30en a

'Iht:! duc x . 10:1

^

IUC:*;*_ t'Z masL5tZ;; be .

pre 11mlnez\-

^

co court ., rill hand }11n

whe tiler

Ll. C '*' L C11\::5::

.-.

of t:liti

Irispecti. on .

Use 01

^

(>r riot' pern\: 3510n should ite

~

,.

111dqt*

.^.

Chie documents , 111cLudL:19

A. dinLssLoii Lnto evld<:rice

Issued

concuri;Lntj tint}

^

'I'he subpoend can be set F1stde if it

Burchard v F1cFarLane (1891) 2 QB 241:

Or Ls

.-

(1983) 9 ACR 58:

bell^q used for tile

1.1 :

^

or Ls riot. shown to be reculr;:c:

forensIC

^

qi. yen for

I ,\

These EULes

whoLe

or oppressLve I^ ,,. Robertson (1983)

purpose .

^

purpose on c!i, scovery :

or L!I part.

,re common tc:- <';'*'L:

MaddLso:I V GoldbrLck (1076)

Ls

Or Ls

LmpEOp(-! r I. V

fish inq Younc;

~ Or some 1. <;I. t Lintlt,

Ji~.*; cx 1,111i, 11 ill. ': I: t, ,. rs .

^.

in.. ,.

, 'rin,.., ,

.* *

I IIS\-.'1.1< 65 I.

,

*

^.

"

,, ~

-

^

^

^

can be used 1.5 the I?r"cCLcc

^

I Led\'L: .3. ,LGi=

prevalent or eVt:;\ bcco;nt:5 111,111t!,';tDr',,.

^

questi. ons of consLderdbLL! Important~12 bccdusL! Ll, c cliport\11', it'.'

^

to test Levi. clerice or CULL Lor <101:urn, .!It:s I>v !:hL!

I~\

^

;:,=

subpoenas becomes sever*=1.1, ECL; tr:cted

:.,-

^

t.

01 :\. 2:16~U:.: rJ!' Lt: : .5 I)13C(:,.;;;,.::; in. (>re

. ..

-^

-. ~,.. . ,

^.

Imagined cliffi. .CULLi. CS which prompt Che

:: ~ ...,

I at, a,

coriumi. ttaL proceedings can be and L am sure frequently

. ..

Ti\*! t

cLLCumvented by

5:1;,

however, that inari'/' of the atft;ICULtLes

^

., I, J ,

...-~.

Defence .

^.

Z, L :;,:

prtvtLeqe

on

There

Crown .

a t. L'LUL .

common sells!, o1\

I::J(:! Or

^

in a'/ 1.13 unwLse or urinecessar'/ on

Li. ke confetti. ,IC d weddLnci may not be

may

Equally

^

DC times when

Of the derenCe. Verbal, . :;, o113nLLL; ,;\::. LCit.

^

Use O.

ai\ unuut:

behd:t of bout Crown ,And

, subpoena

*O

arithU:5 Lu :;1.1 to s pra:/ :;\:I, Foen, :5 ,itJout

or

Lie Iy s t. ri. ct:I y

', n

are

behalt

On

L !I

::

che best Litt(*rests

the