Rohan v R

The appellant in this case sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made by the trial judge, who had refused to grant leave to issue subpoenas for documents related to the counselling of the complainant in a sexual assault case. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have exercised the power under section 299B(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act to inspect documents obtained pursuant to section 299B(1). The appellant contended that the material sought would have substantial probative value, as required by section 299D(1)(a).

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the sexual assault communication privilege, as provided for in section 299B of the Criminal Procedure Act, applied to the proposed subpoenas. The appellant argued that the power under section 299B(4) should be exercised to inspect documents that may have substantial probative value. The court considered whether the trial judge's decision to refuse leave to issue subpoenas was correct, and whether the material sought would have substantial probative value.

The court found that the trial judge was correct in finding that the sexual assault communication privilege applied to the proposed subpoenas. The court held that the privilege protected the complainant's privacy and was not outweighed by the appellant's need for the documents. The court further found that the material sought did not have substantial probative value, as it was unlikely to contribute significantly to the resolution of the case. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was upheld.

No orders were made by the High Court of Australia as the appeal was dismissed. The decision of the trial judge remained in place, and the appellant was not granted leave to issue subpoenas for the documents related to the complainant's counselling.