REGINA v OLIG [2000] NSWSC 1096

REGINA v OLIG [2000] NSWSC 1096

Because the accused and the deceased were not in a marriage for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975, Ms Sweatman was not acting as a family and child counsellor in the relevant sessions. The Act and any oath or affirmation of secrecy therefore did not prevent her from giving relevant evidence, and this was not an appropriate case to exclude the evidence under s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Voir Dire Evidentiary Ruling on Proposed Counsellor Evidence
Outcome
The proposed counsellor evidence was not barred by the Family Law Act 1975 or s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995; the witness was obliged to answer relevant questions.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Counselling Communications' 'family and Child Counsellor Secrecy' 'family Law Act 1975 S 19 N' 'evidence Act 1995 S 126 B' 'de Facto Relationship']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'family Law'] ['admissibility of Counselling Communications' 'family and Child Counsellor Secrecy' 'family Law Act 1975 S 19 N' 'evidence Act 1995 S 126 B' 'de Facto Relationship']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder Trial / Voir Dire Evidentiary Ruling on Proposed Counsellor Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Family Law Act 1975 prevented a counsellor from giving evidence of matters stated during counselling sessions with the accused and the deceased where their relationship was not a marriage for the purposes of the Act.' 'Whether the counsellor was bound by an oath or affirmation of secrecy in relation to the proposed evidence.' 'Whether the court should direct under s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995 that the proposed evidence not be elicited.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the accused and the deceased were not in a marriage for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975, Ms Sweatman was not acting as a family and child counsellor in the relevant sessions. The Act and any oath or affirmation of secrecy therefore did not prevent her from giving relevant evidence, and this was not an appropriate case to exclude the evidence under s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

The proposed counsellor evidence was not barred by the Family Law Act 1975 or s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995; the witness was obliged to answer relevant questions.

Orders

  • ['The witness is obliged to answer questions which are relevant to the issues in the case.' 'No direction was made under s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995 that the evidence sought to be adduced should not be elicited.']