The court considered a claim that a party was not compelled to give evidence where it might incriminate him: ‘No one is bound to furnish information against himself. It [the common law] says: ‘If a witness claims the protection of the court, on the ground that the answer would tend to incriminate himself and there appears reasonable ground to believe that it would do so, he is not compellable to answer.’ and ‘once it appears that a witness is at risk, then ‘great latitude should be allowed to him in judging for himself the effect of any particular question’: see Reg. v. Boyes (1861) 1 B. and S. 311, 330. It may only be one link in the chain, or only corroborative of existing material, but still he is not bound to answer if he believes on reasonable grounds that it could be used against him. It is not necessary for him to show that proceedings are likely to be taken against him, or would probably be taken against him. It may be improbable that they will be taken, but nevertheless, if there is some risk of their being taken – a real and appreciable risk – as distinct from a remote or insubstantial risk, then he should not be made to answer or to disclose the documents.’
Lord Diplock said: ‘Classes of documents provided the description of the class is sufficiently clear, may be required to be produced on subpoena duces tecum.’
Roskill LJ added: ‘It cannot, I think, be right in these cases for the court to attempt a quantitive assessment of the probability one way or the other of the risk of proceedings ultimately being taken, and then to seek to draw the line, one way where the probabilities in the view of the court are thought to be more or less evenly balanced and the other where the balance is more disparate. It is not for the court to resolve problems of this kind by calculating odds. I think that the right question is to ask that posed by Shaw LJ on Friday afternoon. Can exposure to the risk of penalties (or in other cases to the risk of prosecution for a criminal offence) be regarded as so far beyond the bounds of reason as to be no more than a fanciful possibility?’
Judges:
Lord Denning, Lord Diplock, Roskill L
Citations:
[1977] 3 All ER 717, [1978] AC 547
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Edmund Garbett 1847
A man is not compellable to give evidence which might incriminate himself. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract HL 1978
‘The fact, if it be so, that evidence so obtained may be used in other proceedings and indeed may be central in those proceedings is no reason for refusing to allow it to be requested’ Lord Fraser said: ‘in judging the nature of the letters rogatory . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Cited – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Cited – Sociedade Nacional de Combustatives de Angola UEE v Lundqvist CA 1990
Large quantities of crude oil had been sold at an undervalue by a dishonest consultant and his associates. A Mareva injunction had been granted. The defendant objected to being required to disclose the extent of his foreign assets saying that such . .
Cited – Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same ChD 25-Feb-2011
The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.193364
