Ku-ring-gai Council v John David Chia (No 5) [2018] NSWLEC 167
There are no reasonable grounds on the present evidence to conclude that Mr McKenzie is at risk of self-incrimination as the limitation period for prosecuting any offence has elapsed; therefore, no notice or warning regarding the availability of a s 128 certificate is warranted.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Witness Cross Examination
- Outcome
- Application to inform witness and provide s 128 certificate declined.
- Legal Topics
- ['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'issuing Certificates Under S 128 Evidence Act' 'limitation Periods for Offences' 'witness Rights']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Witness Cross Examination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a prosecution witness (Mr McKenzie) should be advised about the potential availability of a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether reasonable grounds exist to justify an objection on the basis of self-incrimination under s 128 Evidence Act' 'Whether the limitation period for prosecuting Mr McKenzie has expired and thus whether self-incrimination is still a risk']
Ratio Decidendi
There are no reasonable grounds on the present evidence to conclude that Mr McKenzie is at risk of self-incrimination as the limitation period for prosecuting any offence has elapsed; therefore, no notice or warning regarding the availability of a s 128 certificate is warranted.
Court Disposition
Application to inform witness and provide s 128 certificate declined.
Orders
- []
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment