Rolfe v The Territory Coroner & Ors

[2023] NTCA 8

NT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Privileges
3. › Self-incrimination privilege
4. › Penalty privilege
5. › Whether common law privilege against exposure to disciplinary and other civil penalties has operation in coronial proceedings
6. › Whether penalty privilege is a substantive rule of law or fundamental common law right
7. › Coroners Act 1993 (NT), s 38
1. Evidence
2. › Privileges
3. › Penalty privilege
4. › Abrogation by statute
5. › Whether statutory abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination impliedly abrogates penalty privilege
6. › Absurdity of leaving penalty privilege intact while removing self-incrimination privilege
7. › Coroners Act 1993 (NT), s 38
1. Coroners
2. › Inquests
3. › Nature of coronial proceedings
4. › Whether coronial proceedings are curial or judicial proceedings
5. › Whether coroner exercises judicial power
6. › Inquisitorial nature of coronial process
7. › Coroners Act 1993 (NT), ss 38, 39, 41
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Principle of legality
3. › Common law rights
4. › Whether principle of legality applies to penalty privilege
5. › Requisite clarity of legislative intention varying according to nature of right
6. › Potter v Minahan principle
7. › Coroners Act 1993 (NT), s 38

Quick Take

Penalty privilege has no application in coronial proceedings under the Coroners Act 1993 (NT). The word 'criminate' in s 38 is synonymous with 'incriminate' and does not extend to civil or disciplinary penalties. Even if penalty privilege were otherwise available, it is abrogated by necessary intendment where the legislature has partially abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination, because it would be absurd to leave the lesser privilege intact while removing the greater. Witnesses in NT coronial inquests may be compelled to answer questions subject to the issue of a use immunity certificate under s 38.