R v Gatt (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 487

R v Gatt (No 6) [2018] NSWSC 487

The disputed letters, apart from parts already disclosed containing admissions, are protected by legal professional privilege and without prejudice privilege at common law and under s 119 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). No applicable exception or waiver was established either at common law or under statute (including the 'Cox v Railton' exception, ss 125, 126, and 131). Consequently, the Crown is not obliged to produce the remainder of the letters to Mr Gatt.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina (Crown); Accused: Joseph Gatt; Co Accused/witness: Mr Berg (George Borg)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Application for production of the disputed letters to Mr Gatt refused; privilege upheld.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Disclosure Obligations, Without Prejudice Privilege, Client Legal Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Plea Negotiations
Criminal Law Evidence Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure Obligations Without Prejudice Privilege Client Legal Privilege Waiver of Privilege Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecutor

Joseph Gatt

Accused

Mr Berg (George Borg)

Co Accused/witness

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown is obliged to disclose letters relating to a co-accused's plea negotiations to the accused under disclosure obligations or whether such letters are protected by legal professional privilege or without prejudice privilege under common law and the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); whether any exception or waiver applies to this privilege, particularly the 'Cox v Railton' exception or statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed letters, apart from parts already disclosed containing admissions, are protected by legal professional privilege and without prejudice privilege at common law and under s 119 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). No applicable exception or waiver was established either at common law or under statute (including the 'Cox v Railton' exception, ss 125, 126, and 131). Consequently, the Crown is not obliged to produce the remainder of the letters to Mr Gatt.

Court Disposition

Application for production of the disputed letters to Mr Gatt refused; privilege upheld.

Orders

  • The Crown is not obliged to produce the letters to Mr Gatt.