An order that the results of disclosure were not to be used in criminal proceedings was enough to protect the defendant. The privilege against self incrimination could be over-ridden in this way, even if that privilege should be lightly set aside.
Judges:
Lord Donaldson MR and Neill LJ
Citations:
Gazette 15-Jan-1992, [1992] 2 WLR 112, [1992] 2 All ER 28, [1992] 1 QB 315
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – A T and T Istel Ltd v Tully HL 9-Sep-1992
The second plaintff had agreed to supply computer systems to a health authority. New owners of the company discovered allegations that the contract had been operated fraudulently. An order had been obtained for production of documents, but the order . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.77584
