R v Norman Lee [2000] NSWCCA 444

R v Norman Lee [2000] NSWCCA 444

The subpoenaed Mission Australia documents were not shown to contain protected confidences because, even assuming confidentiality and an emotional or psychological condition, the Mission Australia officers were providing accommodation and general support and arranging or discussing external treatment, rather than themselves counselling, giving therapy to, or treating the complainant within s 148(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The order relieving Mission Australia from production was therefore set aside and inspection permitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for Leave to Appeal Against an Order Relieving the Recipient of a Subpoena From Complying With It / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['subpoena for Production of Documents' 'sexual Assault Communication Privilege' 'protected Confidence' 'counselling Communication' 'meaning of Counsellor Under S 148(4)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'substantial Probative Value Under S 150 Criminal Procedure Act 1986']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'evidence'] ['subpoena for Production of Documents' 'sexual Assault Communication Privilege' 'protected Confidence' 'counselling Communication' 'meaning of Counsellor Under S 148(4)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'substantial Probative Value Under S 150 Criminal Procedure Act 1986']

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 Pursuant to S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for Leave to Appeal Against an Order Relieving the Recipient of a Subpoena From Complying With It / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the documents caught by the subpoena recorded protected confidences.' 'Whether officers of Mission Australia were counsellors within s 148(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether a claim of sexual assault communications privilege required evidence tendered in open court or could be determined by inspection of the subpoenaed documents.' 'Whether the documents had substantial probative value for the purposes of s 150(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.']

Ratio Decidendi

The subpoenaed Mission Australia documents were not shown to contain protected confidences because, even assuming confidentiality and an emotional or psychological condition, the Mission Australia officers were providing accommodation and general support and arranging or discussing external treatment, rather than themselves counselling, giving therapy to, or treating the complainant within s 148(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The order relieving Mission Australia from production was therefore set aside and inspection permitted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be allowed.' 'The declaration and order of Woods ADCJ be set aside.' 'Mission Australia be ordered to produce the documents to the Court.' 'Leave be granted to the parties to inspect the documents when produced on subpoena by Mission Australia.' 'The...