Noticeboard
| DOI | 10.1177/136571279900300305 |
| Published date | 01 July 1999 |
| Date | 01 July 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
NOTICEBOARD
Notices
should
be
sent
to
Mike
Redmayne,
Law
Department,
Brunei
University,
Uxbridge,
Middlesex
UB8
3PH.
Email:
Mike.Redmayne@Brunel.ac.uk
Canada
-
solicitor:client
privilege
-
public
safety
exception
In Smithv
Jones
(25 March 1999).
the
Supreme Court established
the
existence
of
apublic safety exception to
the
solicitor:client privilege. Jones.
who
was
charged
with
an
aggravated sexual assault.
had
been
referred to a psychiatrist
by his solicitor in
the
hope
that
the
consultation
would be helpful in
the
preparation
of
his defence. or in
making
submissions
on
sentencing. During
the
consultation, Jones revealed detailed plans to
kidnap
and
murder
prostitutes. Jones eventually pleaded guilty to
the
assault.
and
the
psychiatrist filed
an
affidavit
with
the
court
describing his interview
with
Jones. Jones' solicitor contested
the
revelation
of
those details. Reviewing
avariety
of
common
law sources.
the
Supreme Court held
that
the
consultation
was covered by solicitor:client privilege,
but
that
apublic safety
exception to
the
privilege
enabled
the
psychiatrist to disclose
the
interview to
the
court. The question
whether
the
privilege is overridden in a
particular
case was said to
depend
on
the
clarity. seriousness
and
imminence
of
the
threat
posed.
Court
of
Appeal
-
abuse
of
process
-
meaning
of
'unsafe'
The Court
of
Appeal has decided
that
where
a
trial
has
taken
place
on
account
of
an abuse
of
process.
the
conviction may be quashed. There
had
previously
been
some
doubt
as to
whether
the
unified
ground
of
appeal
introduced
by
the
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (whether aconviction is 'unsafe') covered
such
situations. i.e.
those
where
there
was no criticism
of
the
conduct
of
the
trial
itself. Rv
Mullen.
The
Times
15 February 1999.
Court
of
Appeal
-
judge
to
state
reasons
for
preferring
view
of
one
expert
witness
tothatof
another
In
recent
years it has become established
that
ajudge's
failure to give reasons
for a fact-finding decision may
constitute
grounds
for
an
appeal (see. gen-
erally. R v
Harrow
Crown
Court.
ex p.
Dave
[19941
1 All ER 315). In
Flannery
v
Halifax
Estate
Agencies
(The
Times.
4March 1999)
the
Court
of
Appeal held
that
a
200
THE
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
EVIDENCE
&
PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial