R v P.M.L No. Sccrm-01-31

In the case of R v P.M.L, the defendant, L, is charged with multiple sexual offences allegedly committed against young boys while he was their coach at the Brighton Surf Life Saving Club. The offences are said to have occurred between 1983 and 1985, and only came to light in December 1998. One of the alleged victims, P, did not give a statement to the police until August 1999, which was after L had been charged and appeared in court. As a result, L was charged with two additional offences relating to P that allegedly occurred in 1984. The lateness of P's complaint will be a significant issue at trial. To test the veracity of P's evidence, the defence seeks to examine what P now says against what he may have said to others on other occasions. P stated in his police statement that in January 1999, he told a relationships counsellor what L had done to him during a visit with his former wife. A subpoena was issued to Relationships Australia requesting them to produce the records of that counselling session.

Relationships Australia has applied to set aside the subpoena on the grounds that the information requested is protected from disclosure by section 19N of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and on the grounds of public interest immunity. Section 19N(2) of the Act provides that evidence of anything said, or any admission made, at a meeting or conference conducted by a family counsellor is not admissible in any court. The court considered the arguments presented by Relationships Australia and the relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the court held that section 19N of the Act does not apply to this case as it involves criminal proceedings against a third party and does not relate to an issue concerning the marriage between P and his wife. Furthermore, the court found that the documents in question attract public interest immunity, but the administration of justice would be frustrated by the withholding of relevant material evidence from the trial. Therefore, the application to set aside the subpoena is refused.

The legal issues in this case were whether section 19N of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applied to the subpoena in question and whether the documents in question attracted public interest immunity. The court considered the arguments presented by Relationships Australia and the relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the court held that section 19N of the Act does not apply to this case as it involves criminal proceedings against a third party and does not relate to an issue concerning the marriage between P and his wife. Furthermore, the court found that the documents in question attract public interest immunity, but the administration of justice would be frustrated by the withholding of relevant material evidence from the trial. Therefore, the application to set aside the subpoena is refused.