The defendant had relied on an alibi not advanced in police interviews. He had put in evidence the fact that he had had legal advice not to answer questions but had not adduced any evidence of the contents of or reasons for that advice. The Crown asked whether he had told any of his legal advisers what he was now saying. He was not told that he did not have to answer that question. On his answer, the court ordered disclosure of the solicitor’s entire file.
Held: The defendant had done nothing to waive privilege. The procedure adopted was wrong: ‘It could be argued that in such circumstances what a defendant says to his solicitor is a privileged communication and that he waives privilege in that communication by volunteering that he has made it. But that is not what this court has said in the three cases to which we have referred which have not been doubted in any more recent cases where the earlier decisions have been followed. Even if we thought that there was some reason to doubt this well-established line of authority, we are bound to follow it.’
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Crim 1337
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Seaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Legal Professions
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.421563