Regina v Leeanne Trevenna

The appeal in Regina v Leeanne Trevenna involved the appellant, Leeanne Trevenna, and the Crown. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence related to discussions between the Crown and the accused concerning a potential plea agreement, and the inferences to be drawn from the conduct of the accused's counsel during committal proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the communications between the Crown and the accused constituted an "admission" made with authority, and if so, whether these communications could be admitted into evidence despite the loss of client legal privilege. Additionally, the court had to consider the inferences that could be drawn from the accused's counsel's conduct during the committal proceedings, specifically whether such conduct could be used to infer the accused's guilt.

The court found that the communications between the Crown and the accused did not constitute an "admission" made with authority, and therefore could not be admitted into evidence. The court also held that the loss of client legal privilege did not affect the admissibility of the evidence, as the privilege was waived when the accused disclosed the contents of the communications to her counsel. However, the court found that the conduct of the accused's counsel during the committal proceedings could be used to draw adverse inferences against the accused, as it demonstrated that the accused had a guilty conscience.

The court ultimately found in favour of the Crown, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The court made no specific orders beyond the upholding of the conviction.