R v Hicks and Taylor

The case of R v Hicks and Taylor involved the first and second defendants, who were jointly charged with murder and attempted armed robbery. The applicant, who was also originally charged with the same offences, was acquitted following directed verdicts of not guilty. The prosecution intended to call the applicant to testify in the trial of Hicks and Taylor. The Attorney-General provided an undertaking to the applicant that any statement or disclosure given in these proceedings would not be used against him in evidence. Despite this, the applicant claimed a continuing apprehension of prosecution, asserting that he was still entitled to claim privilege against self-incrimination.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant could claim privilege against self-incrimination despite the undertaking provided by the Attorney-General. The applicant argued that the privilege against self-incrimination was not negated by the undertaking, as there remained an apprehension of prosecution. The court needed to determine if this apprehension was sufficient to maintain the privilege, considering the assurances given by the prosecution.

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to claim privilege against self-incrimination, except in specific circumstances where the answer to a particular question may tend to incriminate the applicant in drug trafficking over interstate borders. This exception would be ruled on by the trial judge on a question-by-question basis. The court held that, apart from this potential exception, the applicant could not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination given the assurances and the nature of the charges against Hicks and Taylor. The court thus allowed the prosecution to call the applicant to testify, subject to the aforementioned exception.