Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 53

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 53

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

14 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

14 February 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	I Barker Q.C. M Hall (Plaintiff) R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	On application for access to documents produced on subpoena by the Police Service - legitimate premise purpose - T3906
DECISION:	See paragraph 26

DLJT: 88
(Ex Tempore - Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)


JUDGMENT (On application for access to documents produced on subpoena by the Police Service - legitimate premise purpose - T3906)

1    HIS HONOUR: On 3 February this year a subpoena issued by the solicitors for the plaintiff was served upon the New South Wales Police Service, requiring the production to the Court of documents falling within the categories set out in the Schedule. 2    Two envelopes have been provided by the Police Service which, through Mr Muddle, has indicated that the only basis upon which objection is taken to the material being inspected is the issue of legitimate forensic purpose. No claim for public interest immunity is made. 3    The Schedule attached to the subpoena includes an annexure setting out the identity of people hitherto described variously as accusers, complainants and the like, and periods of time, which I am satisfied can be correlated with the particulars of the defence case in relation to each of them. 4    The material covered by the subpoena, as was pointed out by Mr Muddle, is, to some extent, exclusionary, in that, whilst focusing upon the complainants in the relevant time frames, it is directed, in very general terms, to areas and things outside the alleged involvement of the plaintiff. 5    I have considered the material in the envelopes and am satisfied on the issue of legitimate forensic purpose. Material of the kind contained in the envelopes has legitimately been used in relation to two witnesses the defendant hitherto called for the purposes of cross-examination on issues acutely relevant to whether or not, on the probabilities, that for which the defendant contends could ultimately be found to have been established. 6    The material produced, however, for the reasons to which I have referred, is very wide-ranging and the order I make is to grant access to both parties in the first instance limited to their legal advisers. In the order of things, the plaintiff should go first.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000