swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Evidence - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Price Waterhouse v BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) SA (1992) BCLC 583
1992
CA
Millett LJ
Legal Professions, Evidence
A claim for legal advice privilege was rejected for reports written by accountants both when the accountants were independent and when they reconstituted themselves as a committee of the client. However, legal advice privilege attaches to all communications made in confidence between solicitors and their clients for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice even at a stage when litigation is not in contemplation. It does not matter whether the communication is directly between the client and his legal adviser or is made through an intermediate agent of either.
1 Citers
Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1991) [1993] QB 94
16 Jun 1992
CACD
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ, Macpherson of Cluny and Turner JJ
Crime, Evidence
cw Crime - Computer misuse - Unauthorised access - Person using one computer to obtain from it unauthorised benefit - Whether unauthorised use of single computer within statute - "Access to any program or data held in any computer.
The defendant was accused of misusing computer access to put himself in a position to carry out a fraud. The judge held that the section required more than one computer to have been involved. The court was asked to answer whether this was the case. Held: The charge under section 1(1)(a) of using "a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer," did not require the misuse of one computer to access another. Section 1(1) could be satisfied by causing a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in the same computer.
Computer Misuse Act 1990 1(1)(a) 2(1)
1 Citers
[ lip ]
Regina v Kansal; CACD 24-Jun-1992 - Gazette, 24 June 1992; Gazette, 15 July 1992; [1992] 3 All ER 844; [1993] QB 244
A T and T Istel Ltd v Tully Gazette, 09 September 1992; [1993] AC 45; [1992] 3 All ER 523; [1992] 3 WLR 344
9 Sep 1992
HL
Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lowry
Evidence, Human Rights
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 restricted the use which could be made of the information disclosed. The Court of Appeal held that it was not open to the court to devise protection in substitution for the defendants' privilege against self-incrimination, and that the plaintiffs' claim was neither proprietary nor within section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Held: The privilege against self incrimination survives only where there is a continuing threat of prosecution. The prohibition on the questioning of suspects without caution or after charge is a prophylactic rule designed to inhibit abuse of power by investigatory authorities and to preserve the fairness of the trial by preventing the eliciting of confessions which may have doubtful probative value.
Lord Templeman discussed the privilege against self-incrimination, saying: "the privilege can only be justified on two grounds, first that it discourages the ill-treatment of a suspect and secondly that it discourages the production of dubious confessions. Neither of these considerations applies to the present appeal. It is difficult to see any reason why in civil proceedings the privilege against self-incrimination should be exercisable so as to enable a litigant to refuse relevant and even vital documents which are in his possession or power and which speak for themselves.
I regard the privilege . . exercisable in civil proceedings as an archaic and unjustifiable survival from the past when the court directs the production of relevant documents and requires the defendant to specify his dealings with the plaintiff's property or money."
Lord Griffiths: "the privilege [against self-incrimination] . . is in need of radical reappraisal. It is however deeply embedded in English law and can only be removed or moderated by Parliament . . [which] has in recent years made many inroads into the privilege in a number of statutes. In civil actions . . the privilege can be claimed to thwart the claims of victims of fraud. I can for myself see no argument in favour of the privilege against producing a document the contents of which may go to show that the holder has committed a criminal offence."
Lord Lowry also discussed the ambit of section 72(2) saying that it: "shows that the relevant information has to be intellectual property in order that section 72 may apply and the appellants submitted that the relevant information here is 'commercial information' within the meaning of sub-section (5). In my opinion, the information with which your Lordships are here concerned simply does not fit into the definition in the subsection. Even if it were not already obvious, the concluding words, 'or other intellectual property', show that the 'commercial information' which the definition contemplates must be information of the same type (ejusdem generis) as the other examples of intellectual property which are listed in sub-section (5). The information with which this case is concerned does not pass that test and this action is not concerned with the infringement of any rights pertaining to intellectual property. On this part of the case I respectfully agree with the observations of Lord Donaldson MR and Neill LJ in the Court of Appeal."
Supreme Court Act 1981 72
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Shephard; HL 16-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 27 January 1993; [1993] 1 All ER 225; [1993] 2 WLR 102; [1993] AC 380
