Hallinan, Blackburn-Gittings and Nott (A Firm), Regina (on the Application Of) v Crown Court at Middlesex Guildhall and Another: Admn 15 Nov 2004

In a criminal investigation, the police came to suspect that a junior clerk in a barristers’ chambers was intending to give a false alibi. Though the solicitors were innocent of any wrongdoing, the police required their file. The solicitors claimed legal professional privilege.
Held: Where there is evidence of specific agreement to pervert the course of justice, which is freestanding and independent, in the sense that it does not require any judgment to be reached in relation to the issues to be tried in the case in the solicitor’s office, the court may well be in a position to evaluate whether what has occurred falls within or outwith the protection of legal professional privilege as explained in Cox and Railton.


Rose LJ, Leveson J


[2004] EWHC 2726 (Admin), Times 29-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 766




Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9(1)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Snaresbrook Crown Court, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1988
The defendant was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by making a false allegation of assault against the police. It was said that he must have made a false statement in his application for legal aid for the purpose of bringing . .
CitedRegina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court ex parte Francis and Francis HL 1989
The police had obtained an ex parte order for the production of files from a firm of solicitors relating to financial transactions of one of their clients. The police believed that the client had been provided with money to purchase property by an . .

Cited by:

CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (No 6) CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.219930