(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court discussed the indemnity given to witnesses: ‘But I cannot narrow the protection to what is done in court: it must be wider than that and include some pre-trial work. Each piece of before-trial work should, however, be tested against the one rule; that the protection exists only where the particular work is so intimately connected with the conduct of the cause in court that it can fairly be said to be a preliminary decision affecting the way that cause is to be conducted when it comes to a hearing. The protection should not be given any wider application than is absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice, and that is why I would not be prepared to include anything which does not come within the test I have stated.”
and ‘In the interests of the judicial process a witness should not be exposed to the risk of having his or her evidence challenged in another process.’
Judges:
Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, P
Citations:
[1974] 1 NZLR 180
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Rondel v Worsley HL 1967
Need for Advocate’s Immunity from Negligence
The appellant had obtained the services of the respondent barrister to defend him on a dock brief, and alleged that the respondent had been negligent in the conduct of his defence.
Held: The House considered the immunity from suit of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Meadow v General Medical Council Admn 17-Feb-2006
The appellant challenged being struck off the medical register. He had given expert evidence in a criminal case which was found misleading and to have contributed to a wrongful conviction for murder.
Held: The evidence though mistaken was . .
Cited – Janin Caribbean Construction Ltd v Wilkinson and Another PC 11-Oct-2016
(Grenada) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.238566
