SWN v CJA

The applicant, who is the complainant in a case of alleged child sexual offences, appealed against a decision of the District Court to grant leave for the issue of a subpoena to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant. The first respondent applied to the District Court for leave under section 14G of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to issue a subpoena to a counsellor to obtain records about the applicant. The applicant argued that the Court needs to consider each document containing a protected counselling communication in order to be satisfied that it will have substantial probative value and satisfy the public interest test under section 14H of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The applicant also claimed that the judge granted leave in error of jurisdiction because the judge was not satisfied to the appropriate standard regarding whether the protected counselling communications will have substantial probative value, particularly in circumstances where the judge had not considered the material.

The court found that the applicant's argument regarding the need to consider each document containing a protected counselling communication was not supported by the relevant legislation. The court held that the judge was not required to consider each document individually, but rather could make a general finding that the protected counselling communications had substantial probative value and satisfied the public interest test. The court also found that the judge had not erred in granting leave for the issue of the subpoena, as the judge had considered the material and made an informed decision. The court dismissed the applicant's claim that the judge had acted in excess of jurisdiction.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to succeed in their appeal and that the application was dismissed. The court also held that unless any party sought to be further heard on the question of costs, each party was to bear their own costs of the application.