Correll v Attorney General of NSW [2007] NSWSC 1385

Correll v Attorney General of NSW [2007] NSWSC 1385

The Coroner erred by misconceiving the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, failing to rule appropriately on a global objection, and improperly requiring answers to questions that might criminate or tend to criminate the plaintiff. The privilege was to be determined under s 33 of the Coroners Act without conflating it with s 33AA requirements. The plaintiff was entitled to decline answering each question to which objection was taken, and examination regarding the 'significant development' required prior disclosure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Rulings by Coroner / Final Judgment on Amended Summons
Outcome
Declarations granted; orders made per amended summons (except prayer 5, which was declined); costs deferred.
Legal Topics
['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'coronial Inquests' 'procedural Fairness']
['criminal Law' 'procedural Law'] ['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'coronial Inquests' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Judicial Review of Rulings by Coroner / Final Judgment on Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Coroner erred in determining objections based on privilege against self-incrimination under s 33 and s 33AA of the Coroners Act 1980' 'Whether a global objection to giving evidence was properly made and required ruling' 'Whether questions asked of the plaintiff might criminate or tend to criminate him of an offence' 'Whether plaintiff was entitled to decline to answer certain questions' "Disclosure of 'significant development' to plaintiff prior to examination"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Coroner erred by misconceiving the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, failing to rule appropriately on a global objection, and improperly requiring answers to questions that might criminate or tend to criminate the plaintiff. The privilege was to be determined under s 33 of the Coroners Act without conflating it with s 33AA requirements. The plaintiff was entitled to decline answering each question to which objection was taken, and examination regarding the 'significant development' required prior disclosure.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted; orders made per amended summons (except prayer 5, which was declined); costs deferred.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the second defendant erred in ruling as specified in relation to objections made by the plaintiff on 11, 12, 15, and 21 December 2006 under s 33 of the Coroners Act 1980.' 'Declare that the plaintiff was entitled to decline to answer each question to which objection was taken.' "Order that the...