Giurina v DPP

[2020] VSCA 54

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Privilege
3. › Legal professional privilege
4. › Admissibility of documents obtained under search warrant
5. › Whether ss 118-120 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) exhaustively regulate LPP for admissibility purposes to exclusion of common law
6. › Whether collection and collation of original documents constitutes privileged communication
7. › Whether person can be both lawyer and client for purposes of LPP
8. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 9, 118, 119, 120, 131A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Search warrants
3. › Validity of search warrant
4. › Whether warrant sufficiently particular
5. › Whether execution constituted fishing expedition
6. › Whether higher degree of particularity required where premises occupied by innocent third party
7. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 465
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judicial review
3. › Interlocutory rulings in criminal proceedings
4. › Fragmentation of criminal proceedings
5. › Whether judicial review of magistrate's evidentiary ruling should be entertained

Quick Take

Sections 118-120 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) exhaustively regulate the admissibility of evidence on the ground of legal professional privilege, excluding the common law on that question. A person cannot claim LPP as both lawyer and client under those provisions because there can be no confidential communication or obligation of confidence owed to oneself. The mere collection and collation of pre-existing original documents does not constitute a privileged communication even at common law. The question whether the common law might recognise LPP where the same individual is both client and lawyer was left open but the Court expressed scepticism.