R v Kelsall (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 253

R v Kelsall (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 253

The evidence of the accused's disclosures to Dr Susan Allman and Dr Matthew Boulton is admissible because its probative value in establishing the primary fact in issue (the accused's alleged conduct) is high and outweighs the public interest in maintaining confidentiality, particularly as the statements concerned potential harm to others and fell within exceptions to doctor-patient confidentiality, and the practitioners made these limits known to the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling Prior to Trial
Outcome
Evidence of protected confidences admissible; application to exclude refused.
Legal Topics
['protected Confidences' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'doctor Patient Confidentiality' 'public Interest Vs Confidentiality']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['protected Confidences' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'doctor Patient Confidentiality' 'public Interest Vs Confidentiality']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statements made by the accused to medical practitioners amounting to protected confidences are admissible under s 126B Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Assessment of probative value of the disclosed statements versus public interest in confidentiality']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the accused's disclosures to Dr Susan Allman and Dr Matthew Boulton is admissible because its probative value in establishing the primary fact in issue (the accused's alleged conduct) is high and outweighs the public interest in maintaining confidentiality, particularly as the statements concerned potential harm to others and fell within exceptions to doctor-patient confidentiality, and the practitioners made these limits known to the accused.

Court Disposition

Evidence of protected confidences admissible; application to exclude refused.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of disclosures made to Dr Susan Allman and Dr Matthew Boulton as identified in the transcript of 2 March 2015 at page 4 lines 25 to 35 is admissible and no direction is made pursuant to s 126B of the Evidence Act.']