Aitken and Murphy (No. 4)

In the matter of *Aitken and Murphy (No. 4)*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne before Young J, the proceedings involved an applicant, Mr. Aitken, and a respondent, Mr. Murphy. The core of the dispute, as indicated by the orders, concerned proceedings brought pursuant to section 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to issue a certificate under section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) in favour of the applicant, Mr. Aitken. This was in relation to oral evidence he provided under cross-examination and re-examination. The purpose of such a certificate is to protect a witness from having the evidence they give used against them in criminal proceedings.

Young J reasoned that the applicant's oral evidence, given willingly in the proceedings, might tend to prove that he had committed certain offences. These potential offences included those under Division 2 of the *Tax Administration Act 1953* (Cth), sections 1.1, 1.4 or 1.5 of the *Criminal Code 1995* (Cth), or Division 2 of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic), as well as any equivalent offences committed elsewhere that would constitute an offence under Victorian law if committed in Victoria. The court applied section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) to grant this protection.

The court ordered that a certificate be issued pursuant to section 128 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) to cover the oral evidence of the applicant given under cross-examination and in re-examination. Additionally, the court ordered that its extempore reasons for judgment be transcribed, placed on the court file, and made available to the parties.