R v Williams - [1999] QSC 185

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane No.445 of 1998
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Mackenzie
[R v Williams]
THE QUEEN

v

BRIAN ANDREW WILLIAMS
Applicant

RULING - MACKENZIE J.
Judgment delivered 9 August 1999
CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - Criminal law- s 592A Criminal Code application - whether conversation is protected by legal professional privilege.

Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674
Baker v Campbell (1983) 152 CLR 52

Counsel:Mr J Prus-Butwilowicz for the accused/applicant
Mr B Farr for the Crown/respondent

Solicitors:JA Sherwood & Co for the accused/applicant
Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown/respondent

Hearing date: 4 August 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane No.445 of 1998
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Mackenzie
[R v Williams]
THE QUEEN

v

BRIAN ANDREW WILLIAMS
Applicant

RULING - MACKENZIE J.

Judgment delivered 9 August 1999

The applicant has been indicted for the murder of his estranged wife on or about 14 February 1998. This was an application under s 592A of the Criminal Code for a ruling in relation to the admission in evidence of part of a conversation between the applicant and a woman, who at the time of the conversation, was a solicitor employed by the Legal Aid Office. It is submitted by the applicant that the conversation is inadmissible because it is subject to legal professional privilege. The prosecution resists that notion.
For the purpose of determining the question, I heard evidence from the woman and the applicant and received into evidence by consent her statement to the police and the transcript of her evidence in the committal proceedings.
The circumstances in which the conversation occurred were that at the time of the conversation the applicant was separated from his wife, and had been in contact with an introduction agency run by a woman named Lucy Jacka. The woman with whom the applicant had the conversation in issue had independently approached the agency in mid-December 1997. She had received two introductions in the weeks following her joining. Then, on 12 January 1998 she received a telephone call from Lucy Jacka, in which Jacka told the woman that, while it was not an introduction, she had a friend on her books whose wife was treating him badly since their separation. She said she was worried about him and believed he needed help. The woman agreed to call him and speak to him. She phoned the applicant from work. She said she was from the Legal Aid Office and that Lucy Jacka had asked her to call him. During this phone call she said "What is it you are wanting, Brian? Do you need some legal advice?". He became upset and said "I've had advice but I just need a friend to talk to". She asked him if there was someone he could talk to now. After composing himself he said "No, I'm ok. Can we meet and chat?". After some discussion it was agreed that she would visit him at his home that night.
She then checked the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [1999] QSC 185
Case: [1999] QSC 185
Decision Date: 9 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of Queensland involves Brian Andrew Williams, who is accused of the murder of his estranged wife on or about 14 February 1998. This case focuses on an application under section 592A of the Criminal Code, concerning the admissibility of a conversation between Williams and a woman who was a solicitor employed by the Legal Aid Office. Williams contends that the conversation is inadmissible due to legal professional privilege, a claim the prosecution opposes.

The central legal issue in this case is whether the conversation between Williams and the solicitor is protected by legal professional privilege. The court had to determine if the conversation met the criteria for privilege, specifically whether it was confidential and made for the purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice. The reasoning of previous cases such as Grant v Downs and Baker v Campbell were relevant in assessing the scope of legal professional privilege and whether it should extend beyond the traditionally recognised areas.

The court ruled that the conversation between Williams and the solicitor was not protected by legal professional privilege. The woman made it clear that she did not want to provide legal advice and the meeting was intended to be social. Williams' belief that he was seeking legal advice did not alter the fact that the conversation was not confidential in the context of a solicitor-client relationship. The court emphasised that the privilege is meant to promote the administration of justice by encouraging clients to disclose all relevant information to their legal advisers. Since the conversation did not meet the criteria for privilege, it was deemed admissible in evidence.

The court's ruling allows the prosecution to use the conversation as evidence in the case against Williams. The specific words Williams used during the conversation, which the prosecution wishes to lead, are now admissible, potentially impacting the outcome of the murder trial.

Orders