Morton, M. v. Black, D.R. [1987] FCA 211

Morton, M. v. Black, D.R. [1987] FCA 211

The Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 covers the field, and there was no evidence its terms had been infringed; thus, there is no proper basis for a claim of privilege, and the witness should answer the question.

Parties
Applicant: Mary Morton; Respondent: Donald Ross Black; Applicant's Counsel: Mr. Brereton; Respondent's Counsel: Mr. Gullotta; Witness: Mr. Saunders
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 1987
Procedural Posture
General Division / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Ruling: Witness directed to answer question; privilege claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Telephone Interception, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Admissibility of Evidence
Telecommunications Law Evidence Law Telephone Interception Privilege Against Self Incrimination Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Morton

Applicant

Donald Ross Black

Respondent

Mr. Brereton

Applicant's Counsel

Mr. Gullotta

Respondent's Counsel

Mr. Saunders

Witness

Procedural Posture

General Division / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of a telephone conversation overheard by a witness was admissible
  2. 2 Whether privilege against self-incrimination applied
  3. 3 Whether Commonwealth or NSW legislation was infringed

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 covers the field, and there was no evidence its terms had been infringed; thus, there is no proper basis for a claim of privilege, and the witness should answer the question.

Court Disposition

Ruling: Witness directed to answer question; privilege claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Witness is directed to answer the question.