Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1572

Versace v Monte [2001] FCA 1572

Mr Monte is not required to give evidence on the specified topics because a reasonable ground for the objection exists, the evidence, if answered, could tend to prove commission of an offence under foreign law; the interests of justice do not require the evidence, and no waiver of privilege occurred by reason of prior media statements or other communications. Section 128(2) of the Evidence Act applies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Privilege Claim During Cross Examination
Outcome
Privilege upheld; first respondent not required to give evidence on specified matters.
Legal Topics
['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'waiver of Privilege' 'adverse Inferences' 'evidence Act S 128']
['evidence Law'] ['privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'waiver of Privilege' 'adverse Inferences' 'evidence Act S 128']

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

Interlocutory Application / Privilege Claim During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Monte is entitled to claim privilege against self-incrimination under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in respect of specific topics during cross-examination.' 'Whether the interests of justice require that Mr Monte be compelled to give the evidence despite potential self-incrimination.' 'Whether previous disclosures by Mr Monte constitute a waiver of privilege.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Monte is not required to give evidence on the specified topics because a reasonable ground for the objection exists, the evidence, if answered, could tend to prove commission of an offence under foreign law; the interests of justice do not require the evidence, and no waiver of privilege occurred by reason of prior media statements or other communications. Section 128(2) of the Evidence Act applies.

Court Disposition

Privilege upheld; first respondent not required to give evidence on specified matters.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent is not required to give evidence in relation to the two matters outlined in the Reasons for Decision.']