Re Briggs, P. v. Ex parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (WA) & Ors [1987] FCA 91

Re Briggs, P. v. Ex parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (WA) & Ors [1987] FCA 91

The applications for discovery and interrogatories were refused because this is an exceptional case where ordering discovery would tend to expose the respondents to a penalty by requiring them to identify documents that may lead indirectly to their incrimination, bringing into operation the privilege against self-incrimination.

Parties
Prosecutor: Peter Briggs; First Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (W.A.); Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Third Respondent: The Chairman, National Crime Authority; Fourth Respondent: Comptroller-General of Customs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Applications for Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus and Declarations / Interlocutory Application for Discovery and Interrogatories
Outcome
applications for discovery and for leave to administer interrogatories refused with costs
Legal Topics
Discovery, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Declaratory Relief, Penalties and Forfeitures
Practice and Procedure Evidence Criminal Law Discovery Privilege Against Self Incrimination Declaratory Relief Penalties and Forfeitures

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 8 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Briggs

Prosecutor

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (W.A.)

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

The Chairman, National Crime Authority

Third Respondent

Comptroller-General of Customs

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus and Declarations / Interlocutory Application for Discovery and Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be excused, in limine, from discovery on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination
  2. 2 Whether the applications for discovery and for leave to administer interrogatories should be refused

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for discovery and interrogatories were refused because this is an exceptional case where ordering discovery would tend to expose the respondents to a penalty by requiring them to identify documents that may lead indirectly to their incrimination, bringing into operation the privilege against self-incrimination.

Court Disposition

applications for discovery and for leave to administer interrogatories refused with costs

Orders

  • The prosecutor's application for discovery and the prosecutor's application for leave to administer interrogatories be refused.
  • The prosecutor pay the respondents' costs of the applications.