S v Boulton [2005] FCA 821

S v Boulton [2005] FCA 821

There is no separate common law privilege against spousal incrimination distinct from the rules on competence and compellability of witnesses; and, even if such a privilege exists (as held in Callanan v B), it does not extend to de facto spouses. Therefore, the applicant, being a de facto partner and not legally married, cannot claim spousal privilege and is required to answer the ACC's questions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['spousal Privilege' 'common Law Privilege' 'compellability of Witnesses' 'statutory Abrogation of Privilege' 'de Facto Relationships' 'competence of Witnesses']
['evidence Law' 'criminal Law'] ['spousal Privilege' 'common Law Privilege' 'compellability of Witnesses' 'statutory Abrogation of Privilege' 'de Facto Relationships' 'competence of Witnesses']

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

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there exists a common law privilege against spousal incrimination' 'Whether such a privilege (if it exists) extends to de facto spouses' 'Whether the first respondent was correct to require the applicant to answer questions' 'Whether the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) abrogates any such privilege']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no separate common law privilege against spousal incrimination distinct from the rules on competence and compellability of witnesses; and, even if such a privilege exists (as held in Callanan v B), it does not extend to de facto spouses. Therefore, the applicant, being a de facto partner and not legally married, cannot claim spousal privilege and is required to answer the ACC's questions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application."]