Privilege and Public Interest Immunity

Podcast Location:

Sorry, this podcast has been removed as it is now out of date

Categories:

Criminal Law

CPD Points:

Up to 1 point. details »

Cost:

• a) £65+VAT for this CPDcast only
• b) £299+VAT for unlimited access to all of our podcasts. details »
• c) Discounts for multiple users - call +44 (0) 20 3377 3901 now to speak to our sales team

Length:

30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)

Plays on Computer:

Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes

Contributor(s):

• Richard Campbell

Course Aims:

This podcast aims to give an overview of the laws surrounding Privilege and Public Interest Immunity and the occasions that evidence will be excluded as a result of these doctrines. It focuses specifically on the parts the doctrines play in criminal proceedings and therefore the podcast will be of particular use to Criminal practitioners.

Outcomes:

After completing the course you will:

• Know the definitions of the various types of privilege that exist namely the privilege against self-incrimination, legal professional privilege and 'Without Prejudice' Correspondence;
• Receive examples of statutory exceptions to the privilege against self-incrimination;
• Understand the rationale behind Legal Professional Privilege;
• Understand when Legal Professional Privilege will arise and the types of communication it applies to;
• Understand when Legal Professional Privilege can be waived;
• Know the exceptions surrounding the Legal Professional Privilege;
• Understand what type of communications the 'Without Prejudice' privilege applies to and the relevant exceptions;
• Understand the test for excluding evidence under Public Interest Immunity;
• Know examples of when Public Interest Immunity has been requested, denied or allowed;
• Understand the procedure relating to Public Interest Immunity.

Level:

General Interest

Classification:

Legal Principles
Practical Guide

Sources and References:

• Bar Council Code Conduct;
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
• Criminal Evidence Act 1898;
• Children Act 1989;
• Criminal Justice Act 1987;
• Theft Act 1968;
• Criminal Damage Act 1971;
• Fraud Act 2006;
• Civil Evidence Act 1968;
• Witness Act 1806;
• Insolvency Act 1986;
• C plc v P (Secretary of State for the Home Office and other intervening [2007] 3 All ER 1034;
• R v Boyes (1861) 1 B & S 311;
• Khan v Khan [1982] 2 All ER 60;
• AT & T Istel v Tully [1993] AC 45 HL;
• Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380;
• Re G (A minor) [1996] 2 All ER 65;
• A Chief Constable v A County Council [2003] 1 FLR 579 ;
• Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd [1942] 2 KB;
• Renworth Ltd v Stephansen [1996] 3 All ER 244;
• Brown v Scott [2001] 2 WLR 817;
• S v Switzerland (1991) 14 EHRR 670;
• Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2003] 1 AC 563;
• Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 6) [2005] 1 AC 610;
• Balabel v Air India [1988] Ch 317;
• Nederlandse Reassuriante Groep Holding NV v Bacon & Woodrow [1995] 1 All ER 976;
• Re Highgrade Traders Ltd [1984] BCLC 151;
• USA v Philip Morris Inc, The Times, 16th April 2004;
• Re L (A Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) [1997] AC 16;
• GE Capital v Sutton [2004] 2 BCLC 662;
• Expandable Ltd and others v Rubin, The Times, 10 March 2008;
• British Coal Corp v Dennis Rye Ltd (No 2) [1988] 3 All ER 816;
• R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex p B [1996] AC 487 ;
• Crescent Farm (Sidcup) Sport Ltd v Sterling Offices Ltd [1972] Ch 533;
• Barclays Bank plc v Eustice [1995] 4 All ER 411 CA;
• R v Snaresbrook Court ex p DPP [1988] QB 532;
• R (Howe) v South Durham Magistrates' Court [2005] RTR 55;
• R v Cottrill [2004] All ER (D) 287;
• Barnetson v Framlington Group Ltd [2007] 3 All ER 1054 ;
• Buckinghamshire CC v Moran [1990] Ch 623;
• Rogers v Home Secretary [1973] AC 388;
• Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers [1985] 1 AC 339;
• X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1;
• R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex p Bennet (No 2) [1994] 1 All ER 289;
• R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands ex p Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274;
• R v Johnson (Kenneth) (1989) 88 Cr App R 131;
• Frankson v Home Office [2003] 1 WLR 1952;
• Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910;
• R v H, R v C [2004] 2 AC 134;
• Burmah Oil Co v Bank of England [1980] AC 1090;
• R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 CA;
• Klass v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 214, 232 ;
• Rowe and Davis v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 1 R v H [2003] 1 WLR 411.

This podcast examines the doctrines of privilege and Public Interest Immunity. It discusses the legislation and case law pertaining to the doctrine of privilege, namely privilege against self-incrimination, legal professional privilege and "Without Prejudice" correspondence. It also analyses the rules surrounding Public Interest Immunity which aims to exclude evidence on the grounds of public policy.

Podcast Added: 16/12/2008

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-04-26

This course has now been removed from the site. It is no longer suitable for CPD purposes as it contains information that is out of date or incorrect. For a list of our latest CPDcasts, please visit the library.