Sun Newspapers Pty Ltd v Brisbane T.V. Ltd

[1989] FCA 190

·-

JDQLJI <i? j_

JUDGMENT No. ...... :1

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QLD G356 of 1988
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:  SUN NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD

Applicant

AND:  BRISBANE T.V. LIMITED

First Respondent

AND: H.S.V. CHANNEL SEVEN PTY LTD

Second Respondent

AND:  H.S.V. CHANNEL 7

Third Respondent

PINCUS J. 27 APRIL 19

(9. A ~

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	REc;EIVF:O
.. 4 NAY1939

9         FEDERAL C

-	AUSTR~L~:T OF	, f I
~~c'"'CIPAt	•• ,	I

IS~R /~

, f ___ .. ~~

'-I j·~ .-·~- . \	\ .
........ .	... ~

These reasons relate to the admission of exhibft -2...., ~ 1l

document subpoenaed by the applicant. The subpoena was addressed

it presently necessary to determine whether failure to comply with

to the second respondent and Mr Nicholas Q.C. objected to the production of the document on the ground that that might tend to

incriminate the company .

There is a question whether the privilege against

self-incrimination is available to an artificial person, but I do not propose to determine that point. Nor, as it seems to me, is

my order of 1 November 1988 is to be treated, for the purpose of

the privilege against self-incrimination, as a criminal matter.

My reason for declining to give effect to Mr Nicholas'

objection is that it does not appear that there is such "real and

appreciable" danger to the second respondent, arising from the production of the document subpoenaed, as to make the privilege applicable; see Cross on Evidence 3rd Aust. Ed . p.622. It is true that production of the document provides some additional evidence

that my order of 1 November came to the notice of the second

respondent, but it is clear from the video tape of the relevant

segment that it did. Further, the objection is not taken on oath:

see Spokes v. The Grosvenor and West End Railway Terminus Hotel

Company Limited (1897) 2 Q.B. 124 and Phipson's 11th ed. para.617.