Privilege Against Self Incrimination Notes

Privilege against self-incrimination

Rule

• Not bound to answer questions or provide information if the answer or information would have a tendency to expose to criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture

• Must be

  • Real risk of criminal proceedings

  • Real risk that the answers and information will be used in the proceedings – Rank Film; Tully; Den Norske

    • = not technical approach as to whether ‘will lead to’ proceedings

• Must be claimed in response to specific questions or requests for information

  • Cannot be claimed broadly to provide information or testify

  • No answer to civil claim

  • Failure to plead will constitute a waiver – although in some circs can hand over information subject to right to claim privilege against self-incrimination

• Source – ECHR Art 6 – not expressly recognised but implied

  • ‘incriminate’ interpreted narrowly – only answers that would directly incriminate – Orkem v Commission (1989)

  • CF UK law – “tendency to incriminate” interpreted broadly – includes series of questions that leaves only an incriminating conclusion open

• Does not cover penalties under foreign law – but court has discretion

• Covers answers that would incriminate spouse or partner

• Can be abrogated –

  • but abrogation must be compatible with Art 6 under HRA

  • in the UK there are about 25 such abrogations

  • NB can create problems in contempt proceedings – usually express abrogation exists but if not can obstruct proceedings

Meaning of ‘coercion’

• ECtHR – size of fine relevant to determining whether there is compulsion & therefore whether breach of privilege

  • O’Halloran & Francis v UK – depends on degree of compulsion

    • Proportionality analysis?

  • King v UK (2004) (fines up to 300) <> JB v Switzerland (2001) fines of around 700 – surely not a material distinction & has created significant criticism

• Whether separate obligation makes a difference

  • Drink driving cases – separate offence not to provide information so question whether have been drinking not in breach

  • BUT isn’t that separate offence just a matter of drafting? And contempt proceedings in general constitute that separate offence

Application to corporations

• In UK – yes <> elsewhere mainly no

• A human right? Depends on justification

  • All groups – churches, trade unions, political organisations

  • Can’t be any distinction between claimant & defendant – must be on equal footing

  • Except for interrogatories – question re corps only arise in relation to pre-existing documents

• Justification – corporations have reputations to protect as well

• EPA v Caltex Refining

  • Gleeson CJ in NSWCA – intended to maintain proper balance between powers of Stae & rights & interest of citizens

  • Rejected by Mason CJ & Toohey J HCA – would be too difficult to enforce corporate crime & in any event corporations are different to persons – in quality & strength vis a vis state

Prohibited uses

• Common law – disclosures that might be used in prosecution or in making decision to prosecute – Tully

• SCA 1981 s 72(3) – provide for compulsory disclosure but recognise ‘use immunity’ – no statement can be used in evidence in criminal trial

  • IE allows civil trial to be resolved without criminal consequences

  • BUT doesn’t prevent derivative use – can uncover other evidence to same effect

• ECtHR in Saunders v UK – court’s ‘sole concern’ was with ‘the use made of the relevant statements made at trial’ –...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Principles of Civil Procedure Notes.