Otl v P

Otl v P

The court held that privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to freestanding evidence not created under compulsion, and that the public interest in prosecution of crime outweighs the individual’s right to PSI in this context. The court modified the application of domestic PSI to exclude such material and ordered its delivery to the police, releasing the implied undertaking of confidentiality.

Parties
Claimant: OTL; Defendant: P; Independent Computer Expert: W; 1st Intervenor: THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME OFFICE; 2nd Intervenor: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Application Regarding Privilege Against Self Incrimination and Delivery of Evidence to Police
Outcome
Application granted; PSI does not protect freestanding evidence; order for delivery of offending material to police.
Legal Topics
Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Disclosure, Search Orders, Implied Undertaking, Modification of Common Law Privilege, Balancing Convention Rights
Civil Procedure Human Rights Evidence Privilege Against Self Incrimination Disclosure Search Orders Implied Undertaking Modification of Common Law Privilege +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OTL

Claimant

P

Defendant

W

Independent Computer Expert

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME OFFICE

1st Intervenor

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

2nd Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Application Regarding Privilege Against Self Incrimination and Delivery of Evidence to Police

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether privilege against self-incrimination (PSI) applies to material constituting freestanding evidence not created under compulsion
  2. 2 Whether PSI was lost by delivery of material to court officers
  3. 3 Whether the court can modify the ambit of PSI to exclude freestanding evidence in light of Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention jurisprudence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to freestanding evidence not created under compulsion, and that the public interest in prosecution of crime outweighs the individual’s right to PSI in this context. The court modified the application of domestic PSI to exclude such material and ordered its delivery to the police, releasing the implied undertaking of confidentiality.

Court Disposition

Application granted; PSI does not protect freestanding evidence; order for delivery of offending material to police.

Orders

  • W to deliver computer and associated electronic materials containing offending material to appropriate police authority.
  • Implied undertaking of confidentiality released.