Legal professional privilege in Australia

Last updated

In Australia, legal professional privilege (also referred to as client legal privilege) is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

Contents

History

Legal professional privilege emerged in the 16th century in England; it was originally a privilege held by a lawyer rather than the lawyer's client. [1]

Legal professional privilege in Australia developed from the English common law privilege.

The rationale for legal professional privilege in an Australian context has been explained in the following ways: [2]

Michael Kirby has described legal professional privilege as an "important human right deserving of special protection for that reason". [3]

The Australian Law Reform Commission has adopted the terminology 'client legal privilege', as opposed to 'legal professional privilege', on the basis the privilege is held by the client not the lawyer. [4] 'Client legal privilege' is the terminology used in Commonwealth and state evidence statutes. However, the common law privilege remains almost universally described by courts as 'legal professional privilege'.

Source of rule

Legal professional privilege in Australia is established by both the common law and various statutes. Both sources reflect the two limbs of legal professional privilege: advice privilege and litigation privilege.

Common law

Legal professional privilege has been described as an "important common law right" that is enforceable in equity. [5] The Evidence Acts do not expressly alter the common law privilege. [5]

The common law maintains a distinction between two limbs of legal professional privilege. Advice privilege refers to the protection of communications between a client and a lawyer for the purposes of the lawyer providing legal advice to the client. Litigation privilege refers to the protection of communications between a client, lawyer (and any third party) for the dominant purpose of anticipated or existing legal proceedings. The prior test of 'sole purpose,' as per Grant v Downs, [6] limited a lawyer's ability to claim privilege on items that were not for the exclusive purpose of the client's case. The current dominant purpose test, while more complex, significantly broadens the scope of legal professional privilege, as defined in Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation . [7] There is, invariably, much overlap between the two limbs. [8]

Statute

Sections 118 and 119 of the 'Evidence Act 1995' (Cth) provide that confidential communications created for the dominant purpose [9] of providing legal advice or litigation are protected from disclosure to federal courts. Similar or identical provisions have been adopted in New South Wales [10] and Tasmania. [11] Legal professional privilege in the context of court proceedings is governed by the common law in the remaining Australian states.

Scope and content of the privilege

Two limbs

The privilege protects two kinds of confidential communications between a client and his or her lawyer. The first kind is where the communications are confidential and made for the purposes of seeking or being provided with legal advice. The second kind is where the communications are made for the purpose of existing or reasonably contemplated judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. [12] These two limbs of the privilege are called the advice privilege and the litigation privilege. [13]

Waiver of privilege

Legal professional privilege is not absolute and it does not attach to a communication indefinitely. The privilege may be waived by the client, but not by the lawyer. Accordingly, a client's intentional or inadvertent actions in relation to their use of legal advice may preclude the client from asserting the privilege in future.

The High Court in Mann v Carnell [14] established a test of 'inconsistency' to determine whether a client has waived legal professional privilege over a communication. That is, a client will have waived privilege where their conduct has been inconsistent with the maintenance of that privilege. The most common circumstance in which a client will be found to have waived a privilege include disclosing the full advice, or the conclusions, gist or substance of the advice, to a third party or the public at large. This raises particular problems for public figures seeking to justify a particular course of action by relying on legal advice. However, privilege is not waived if a disclosure of a communication was made under a "compulsion of law". [15] An implied waiver of privilege can only occur when there is a voluntary disclosure of communication. [16]

Privilege and in-house lawyers

One of the most unsettled areas of privilege law in Australia is the extent to which advice provided by in-house counsel is protected. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (No. 2), [17] Justice Graham of the Federal Court of Australia refused a claim for privilege over advice provided by in-house counsel of Telstra, holding 'an in-house lawyer will lack the requisite measure of independence if his or her advice is at risk of being compromised by virtue of the nature of his employment relationship with his employer'. This created concerns in the legal community as to the extent that in-house legal advice is protected from disclosure to a court. [18] Justice Graham did not set out any measures or criteria for determining when an in-house lawyer is sufficiently independent of his or her employer.

In Vance v Air Marshall McCormack, [19] Justice Crispin of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory held that privilege only attached to advice provided by lawyers who had a right to practice. This judgment has substantial ramifications for in-house counsel who are not admitted solicitors.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no appellate authority on the extent to which legal professional privilege applies to advice provided by in-house counsel.

Privilege and quasi-judicial proceedings

There is conflicting authority on whether legal professional privilege applies to communications prepared for the purpose of non-judicial legal proceedings, such as in administrative tribunals or commissions of enquiry. These conflicts have generally not reached appellate level.

In Ingot Capital Investments v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets, [20] Justice Bergin of the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that privilege did not apply to proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Justice Bergin's reasoning was that the AAT was not a court and stood outside the adversarial system of justice as an inquisitorial administrative body not bound by the rules of evidence.

The AAT itself departed from and strongly criticised Ingot in a decision handed down by Justice Downes in his capacity as President of the AAT. In Farnaby and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, [21] Justice Downes held that the litigation limb of the privilege applied to AAT proceedings and took the step of directing all future claims for privilege in the AAT to be handled accordingly.

The ALRC recommends extending legal professional privilege to non-judicial proceedings. [22]

ALRC inquiry

On 29 November 2006, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock asked the ALRC to inquire into legal professional privilege in the context of coercive information-gathering powers held by Commonwealth agencies. A Discussion Paper was released by the ALRC on 26 September 2007, noting the need for a clear and consistent approach to legal professional privilege in Australia and its states and territories. [23]

Extension to tax advisers

In April 2011, Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten announced a consultation on extending privilege to accountants providing tax advice, like their American counterparts. [24]

Other types of privileges

While the main perception of professional legal privilege is the client lawyer relationship some Australian States in particular NSW have extended this privilege to 'protected confidences' defined as "communication made by a person in confidence to another person .... in the course of a relationship in which the confidant was acting in a professional capacity". [25] The Division in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for 'Professional confidential relationship privilege' and how it is excluded or lost is at Division 1A [26] This is often interpreted as being between a health professional and their patient. It may however, extend to confidential advice from social workers, and accountants.[ citation needed ]. NSW has also added a 'Sexual assault communications privilege' at Division 1B [27] Therefore, when considering the access and adducing decisions for medical records that may also cover sexual assault records, the first consideration of course will be relevance, and then any NSW court or tribunal may exclude any evidence of either 'Professional confidential relationship privilege' or 'Sexual assault communications privilege' or both. These sections of the Act aimed to provide further restrictions and protections against oppressive discovery that can cause undue harm to a party in court and may dissuade them from seeking medical care or counselling or damage those relationships, see for example, R v A and B [28] for an appeal on an application in a case for access to discovery across 'Professional confidential relationship privilege' and 'Sexual assault communications privilege' and how the exclusions are decided.

In some jurisdictions in Australia privilege may also extend to journalists, [29] (Shield laws), and priests [30] It may also be invoked in a Public interest, [31] or Matters of State [32] issue. Settlement Negotiations may also be privileged. [33]

Spousal privilege is held to be non-existent in Australian Common Law. [34] [35] Though it may exist in statute [36] [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the name given to the common law concept of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

Confidentiality involves a set of rules or a promise usually executed through confidentiality agreements that limits the access or places restrictions on certain types of information.

In Australia, Torts are common law actions for civil wrongs. Unless barred by statute, individuals are entitled to sue other people, or the state; for the purpose of obtaining a legal remedy for the wrong committed.

Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and their doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction that recognizes physician–patient privilege not to testify in court, either by statute or through case law, limits the privilege to knowledge acquired during the course of providing medical services. In some jurisdictions, conversations between a patient and physician may be privileged in both criminal and civil courts.

In the common law, spousal privilege is a term used in the law of evidence to describe two separate privileges that apply to spouses: the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, pastor–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege, is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications between clergy and members of their congregation. This rule recognises certain communication as privileged and not subject to otherwise obligatory disclosure; for example, this often applies to communications between lawyers and clients. In many jurisdictions certain communications between a member of the clergy of some or all religious faiths and a person consulting them in confidence are privileged in law. In particular, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, among adherents of other Christian denominations, confess their sins to priests, who are unconditionally forbidden by Church canon law from making any disclosure, a position supported by the law of many countries, although in conflict with civil (secular) law in some jurisdictions. It is a distinct concept from that of confidentiality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative Appeals Tribunal</span> Australian tribunal

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It is not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and started operation in 1976.

In common law jurisdictions, the duty of confidentiality obliges solicitors to respect the confidentiality of their clients' affairs. Information that solicitors obtain about their clients' affairs may be confidential, and must not be used for the benefit of persons not authorized by the client. Confidentiality is a prerequisite for legal professional privilege to hold.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

In common law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

The doctrine of priest–penitent privilege does not appear to apply in English law. The orthodox view is that under the law of England and Wales privileged communication exists only in the context of legal advice obtained from a professional adviser. A statement of the law on priest–penitent privilege is contained in the nineteenth century case of Wheeler v. Le Marchant:

In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. ... There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. ... Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected.

<i>Harriton v Stephens</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Harriton v Stephens, was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated.

In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding.

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client and so may only be waived by the client.

The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge kept secret the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr.

There is no absolute right to privacy in Australian law and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by common law in Australia and a range of federal, state and territorial laws, as well as administrative arrangements.

<i>Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, also known as 'Esso' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

The Kellem review was an Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) inquiry undertaken by Murray Kellam from July 2014 to February 2015 into Victoria Police human source management. The review was initiated in response to newspaper reports about the actions of lawyer Nicola Gobbo in providing information to police.

References

  1. ↑ Desiatnik 1999 , p. 9
  2. ↑ ALRC Discussion Paper 73, "Client Legal Privilege and Federal Investigatory Bodies", Chapter 2.
  3. ↑ The Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49 , (2002) 213 CLR 543, per Kirby J at [85]–[86].
  4. ↑ ALRC Discussion Paper 73, "Client Legal Privilege and Federal Investigatory Bodies", Chapter 1, pages 22–23.
  5. 1 2 Anderson, Williams & Clegg 2009, p. 540.
  6. ↑ [1976] HCA 63.
  7. ↑ Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67 , (1999) 201 CLR 49; see also, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Ltd [1996] HCA 34 , (1996) 186 CLR 404.
  8. ↑ ALRC Discussion Paper 73, "Client Legal Privilege and Federal Investigatory Bodies", Chapter 3, pages 65–66.
  9. ↑ Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCATrans 343 (28 September 1999).
  10. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s117"..
  11. ↑ Evidence Act 2001 (Tas).
  12. ↑ Desiatnik 1999 , pp. 19–20
  13. ↑ Australian Law Reform Commission. ALRC Report 107 Privilege in Perspective: Client Legal Privilege in Federal Investigations. p. 3.28. Retrieved 27 January 2010.
  14. ↑ Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66 , (1999) 201 CLR 1.
  15. ↑ Sevic v Roarty [1998] NSWSC 462.
  16. ↑ Waugh Asset Management v Merrill Lynch [2010] NSWSC 197.
  17. ↑ Telstra Corporation Limited v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (No. 2) [2007] FCA 1445.
  18. ↑ Allens Arthur Robinson Publication, In-house lawyers and claims for privilege, September 2007
  19. ↑ Vance v Air Marshall McCormack [2004] ACTSC 78.
  20. ↑ Ingot Capital Investments v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets [2006] NSWSC 530.
  21. ↑ Farnaby and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2007] AATA 1792.
  22. ↑ ALRC Discussion Paper 73, "Client Legal Privilege and Federal Investigatory Bodies", Chapter 3, page 72.
  23. ↑ "ALRC addresses costly disputes over client legal privilege" (Press release). ALRC. 26 September 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
  24. ↑ "Accountants, lawyers take potshot at each other over professional privilege". The Australian . 18 April 2011.
  25. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s126A"..
  26. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Division 1A"..
  27. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Division 1B"..
  28. ↑ "[1999] NSWADTAP 2"..
  29. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s126K"..
  30. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s127"..
  31. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s129"..
  32. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s130"..
  33. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s131"..
  34. ↑ "High Court rules no spousal privilege". news.com.au. 30 November 2011. Archived from the original on 7 January 2017.
  35. ↑ Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart [2011] HCA 47 , (2011) 244 CLR 554.
  36. ↑ "Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s18"..
  37. ↑ "Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s18"..

Bibliography

Further reading


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.