Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Thompson

Tasmania v Thompson

Case [2022] TASSC 51 19 March 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2022] TASSC 51

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Thompson [2022] TASSC 51
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
THOMPSON, Jeffrey Ian
FILE NO:	374/2017
DELIVERED ON:	19 March 2020
PUBLISHED ON:	23 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATES:	31 October 2019
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Evidence – Admissibility – Exclusions: Privileges – Client legal privilege – Loss of privilege – Misconduct.

Aust Dig Evidence [1183]

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences relating to the administration of justice – Perverting the course of justice – Whether an objective tendency to pervert the course of justice is an element of the crime

of perverting justice.

Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), ss 105, 361A.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 117, 119, 125.
R v Murray (1982) 75 Cr App R 58; Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; Tasmania v Crane [2006]
TASSC 82; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Stanizzo [2019] NSWCA 129, applied.
R v Collins [1993] TASSC 135; R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268; R v Beckett [2015] HCA 38, 256 CLR
305, referred to.
May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; 50 A Crim R 157; Johnston
v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 108, followed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2558]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Crown: J Hartnett, E Bill
Accused D Edwardson QC, F Merenda

Solicitors:

Crown: Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Munro and Associates

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASSC 51
Number of paragraphs:	38

Serial No 51/2022 File No 374/2017

STATE OF TASMANIA v JEFFREY IAN THOMPSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
19 March 2020

1             The indictment in this case charges the accused with two counts of perverting justice contrary to s 105 of the Criminal Code. He has pleaded not guilty to each charge, and, hence, the trial has commenced before me. A jury has not yet been empanelled.
2             The accused is, and was at all material times, a legal practitioner. It is common ground that in 2017, he performed some work intended to assist Susan Neill-Fraser in respect of her application for leave to lodge a second appeal against her conviction for murder. At the relevant time, the proceedings relating to that application were under way. The application was determined by me on 21 March 2019: see Neill-Fraser v Tasmania [2019] TASSC 10. It is a live issue as to whether Ms Neill-Fraser was the client of the accused with respect to that work, within the meaning of s 117 of the Evidence Act 2001.
3             The prosecution case relates to two acts performed by the accused during the course of that work. The prosecution alleges that each act was performed by him with intent to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the due course of justice, or the administration of law, in particular, with respect to the said proceedings. The prosecution asserts that the accused thereby…

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 Tasmania v Thompson

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Thompson [2022] TASSC 51
Case: [2022] TASSC 51
Decision Date: 19 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Thompson, the appellant was charged with a series of criminal offences involving fraud and misuse of public funds. The case before the court involved the admissibility of certain documents and communications that were sought to be excluded on the basis of client legal privilege. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining whether the privilege applied and if any misconduct by the appellant led to the loss of that privilege.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the documents in question were protected by client legal privilege and if misconduct by the appellant resulted in the loss of that privilege. The appellant argued that the documents were privileged and thus inadmissible, while the respondent contended that the privilege was lost due to misconduct, which included the destruction of documents and the commission of the alleged offences themselves.

The court considered the principles surrounding client legal privilege and its exceptions. It held that the documents were indeed privileged but found that the appellant's misconduct, including the destruction of documents and the commission of the offences, constituted sufficient grounds for the loss of privilege. Consequently, the court ruled that the privilege was lost, and the documents were admissible in evidence. The court emphasised that the loss of privilege was a serious matter and was not to be taken lightly, but in this case, the misconduct warranted such a decision.

The final orders of the court allowed for the admission of the contested documents as evidence, thereby enabling the prosecution to proceed with the case against the appellant. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process and the consequences of undermining that integrity through misconduct.

Orders