Regina v Leeanne Trevenna [2002] NSWSC 1276

Regina v Leeanne Trevenna [2002] NSWSC 1276

The court held that the proposed evidence of discussions between the accused's solicitor and the Crown was inadmissible because there was insufficient evidence to infer that the solicitor was authorised to make an admission on the accused's behalf, and client legal privilege was not lost. Furthermore, drawing adverse inferences from the conduct of legal representatives without reliable evidence is dangerous and should be approached with extreme caution, given recent Court of Criminal Appeal authority.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Leeanne Trevenna
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial; Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Client Legal Privilege, Admissions by Accused, Plea Negotiations
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Client Legal Privilege Admissions by Accused Plea Negotiations

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Leeanne Trevenna

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial; Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the communication between the accused's solicitor and the Crown constituted an 'admission' by the accused
  2. 2 Whether client legal privilege was lost permitting admission of the communication into evidence
  3. 3 Whether inferences about the accused’s instructions can be drawn from her counsel’s conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed evidence of discussions between the accused's solicitor and the Crown was inadmissible because there was insufficient evidence to infer that the solicitor was authorised to make an admission on the accused's behalf, and client legal privilege was not lost. Furthermore, drawing adverse inferences from the conduct of legal representatives without reliable evidence is dangerous and should be approached with extreme caution, given recent Court of Criminal Appeal authority.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • The Crown is not permitted to lead the proposed evidence from Mr MacIntosh regarding communications from Ms White.
  • The Crown is not permitted to lead material arising from Mr Neil-Smith’s conduct of the committal proceedings.