PPC v Williams [2013] NSWCCA 286

PPC v Williams [2013] NSWCCA 286

The trial judge erred in applying an inclusive approach by finding the totality of the documents had substantial probative value, failed to address the balancing exercise mandated by s 299D(1)(c), and did not properly exclude inadmissible prior sexual history under s 293. The statutory requirements must be applied at the stage of granting access to protected confidences, not deferred to trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment of the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeals' 'sexual Assault Communications Privilege' 'subpoena of Protected Confidence Documents' 'assessment of Substantial Probative Value' 'admissibility of Evidence Relating to Prior Sexual History']
['criminal Law'] ['interlocutory Appeals' 'sexual Assault Communications Privilege' 'subpoena of Protected Confidence Documents' 'assessment of Substantial Probative Value' 'admissibility of Evidence Relating to Prior Sexual History']

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 Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment of the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in approach to assessment of substantial probative value under s 299D(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'Whether the trial judge failed to undertake the balancing exercise required by s 299D(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'Whether the trial judge erred in allowing access to material without properly considering inadmissibility under s 293' 'Whether access can be granted to protected confidence documents without satisfaction of statutory preconditions']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in applying an inclusive approach by finding the totality of the documents had substantial probative value, failed to address the balancing exercise mandated by s 299D(1)(c), and did not properly exclude inadmissible prior sexual history under s 293. The statutory requirements must be applied at the stage of granting access to protected confidences, not deferred to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal, pursuant to s 5F(3AB) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912' 'Appeal allowed' "Set aside the orders of McClintock DCJ dated 2 August 2013, except insofar as the orders permit access to the parties' legal representatives only to such of the subpoenaed documents in respect of which the...