R v Cranston (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1105

R v Cranston (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1105

The privilege application was withdrawn. Before withdrawal, the Court refused an adjournment insofar as it related to requiring Mr Onley and Mr Adam Cranston to demonstrate an arguable basis for client legal privilege, because they had sufficient time to identify any viable claim, had filed no evidence actually supporting the claim, advanced only an ambit claim over broad categories of communications involving Mr Menon, and had not identified the essential elements of a confidential lawyer-client communication made for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal; Pre Trial Application for Declaration of Client Legal Privilege / Pre Trial Application Concerning Client Legal Privilege Over Material in the Crown Brief; Application Withdrawn
Outcome
Pre-trial application for declaration of client legal privilege withdrawn.
Legal Topics
['client Legal Privilege' 'surveillance Device Recordings' 'telephone Intercept Recordings' 'privilege Claims by Alleged Co Conspirators' 'pre Trial Directions' 'adjournment']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['client Legal Privilege' 'surveillance Device Recordings' 'telephone Intercept Recordings' 'privilege Claims by Alleged Co Conspirators' 'pre Trial Directions' 'adjournment']

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

Common Law Criminal; Pre Trial Application for Declaration of Client Legal Privilege / Pre Trial Application Concerning Client Legal Privilege Over Material in the Crown Brief; Application Withdrawn

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether client legal privilege attached to communications recorded by use of surveillance devices and telephone intercept warrants.' 'Whether an adjournment should be granted before determining whether the applicants could establish the basic elements of client legal privilege.' 'Whether the applicants identified an arguable basis that confidential communications were made between a lawyer and client for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The privilege application was withdrawn. Before withdrawal, the Court refused an adjournment insofar as it related to requiring Mr Onley and Mr Adam Cranston to demonstrate an arguable basis for client legal privilege, because they had sufficient time to identify any viable claim, had filed no evidence actually supporting the claim, advanced only an ambit claim over broad categories of communications involving Mr Menon, and had not identified the essential elements of a confidential lawyer-client communication made for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice.

Court Disposition

Pre-trial application for declaration of client legal privilege withdrawn.

Orders

  • ['Jason Onley withdrew any objection to the tender of evidence in the trial on the basis of client legal privilege or any other privilege.' 'Adam Cranston withdrew any objection to the tender of evidence in the trial on the basis of client legal privilege or any other privilege.']