Murphy v The Queen

Murphy (the applicant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. The applicant had been convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges relating to a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth by obtaining payments of unemployment benefits to which he and others were not entitled.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by admitting evidence of certain conversations between the applicant and a co-conspirator, which the applicant argued were inadmissible due to privilege. Specifically, the applicant contended that these conversations, which occurred after the alleged conspiracy had been formed but before its completion, were protected by legal professional privilege. The High Court was required to determine the scope of legal professional privilege in the context of ongoing criminal conspiracies and whether the privilege extended to communications made for the purpose of furthering such a conspiracy.

The High Court, by majority, held that legal professional privilege does not extend to communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal or fraudulent enterprise, even if those communications are between a client and their legal adviser. The Court reasoned that the privilege is designed to protect communications made for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice in relation to lawful activities. To allow the privilege to shield communications aimed at perpetrating a crime would be contrary to public policy and the fundamental purpose of the privilege. Therefore, the evidence was rightly admitted.

The appeal was dismissed.