Lusty, David --- "Is There a Common Law Privilege Against Spouse-Incrimination?" [2004] UNSWLawJl 1; (2004) 27(1) UNSW Law Journal 1
[*] BEc, LLB Hons 1, LLM Hons 1, Senior Lawyer, Independent Commission Against Corruption, writing in a personal capacity. I would like to thank Professor Terry Carney, Associate Professor Jill Hunter, Associate Professor Suzanne McNicol, Kim Weatherall, Charles Colquhoun and Adam D’Andreti for their advice and assistance.
[1] Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1, 11.
[2] See below nn 3 1–33 and accompanying text.
[3] See, eg, The King of The Two Sicilies v Willcox [1851] EngR 134; (1851) 1 Sim NS 301, 329; [1851] EngR 134; 61 ER 116, 128; Rochfort v Trade Practices Commission [1982] HCA 66; (1982) 153 CLR 134, 145, 150; Controlled Consultants Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Corporate Afairs [1985] HCA 6; (1985) 156 CLR 385.
[4] See, eg, Peter Gilles, Law of Evidence in Australia (2nd ed, 1991) 456, 459–60; Suzanne B McNicol, Law of Privilege (1992) 224–5; Law Book Company, The Laws of Australia, vol 16 (at 6 June 2004) 16 Evidence, ‘Chapter 16.7 Privilege and Public Interest Immunity’ [69].
[5] See, eg, Southwell v Maladina [2002] FCA 76 (Unreported, Dowsett J, 5 February 2002) [13]; Sogel ease Australia Ltd v Grifin [2003] NSWSC 178 (Unreported, Palmer J, 29 July 2003) [44]; Callanan v Bush [2004] QSC 88 (Unreported, Douglas J, 8 April 2004). See also below nn 213-33 and accompanying text.
[6] See below nn 148–9, 152, 232 and accompanying text.
[7] See below nn 137, 142, 143, 208, 210, 240 and accompanying text.
[8] Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477, 516 (fn 60).
[9] Leach v The King [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305, 311; Hawkins v Sturt [1992] NZHC 228; [1992] 3 NZLR 602, 610.
[10] See, eg, Norman W Williams, ‘Compellability of Witness’ [1978] Criminal Law Review 429; McNicol, above n 4, 301.
[11] Zelman Cowan and Peter B Carter, Essays on the Law of Evidence (1956) 220.
[12] See Sir Edward Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England. Or, a Commentarie Upon Littleton, Not the Name of a Lawyer Onely, but of the Law It Selfe (1st ed, 1628) 6b; Sir Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown (c1676) vol 2, 279; William Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (1716) book 2, 431; Joseph Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law (1816) vol 2, 594; Thomas Starkie, Practical Treatise of the Law of Evidence: and Digest of Proofs, in Civil and Criminal Law Proceedings (1st ed, 1824) vol 2, 706.
[13] Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law (7th ed, 1832) vol 3, 203.
[14] See, eg, Hawkins, above n 12; Sir Geoffrey Gilbert, The Law of Evidence (1754) 96.
[15] Snyder’s Lessee v Snyder, 6 Binn 483, 488 (Pa, 1814). See also Mary Grigg’s Case [1803] EngR 20; (1672) T Raym 1; 83 ER 1.
[16] See Chitty, above n 12; Barker v Dixie (1736) Cas t Hard 264; [1815] EngR 380; 95 ER 171; Bentley v Cooke (1784) 3 Dougl 422; 99 ER 729; Starkie, above n 12.
[17] See R v Locker (1803) 5 Esp 107; 170 ER 754; R v Brittleton and Bates [1884] UKLawRpKQB 32; (1884) 12 QBD 266; R v Mount (1934) 24 Cr App R 135.
[18] See Lord Audley’s Case (1631) 3 St Tr 401; R v Azire (1726) 1 Str 633; 93 ER 746; Director of Public Prosecutions v Blady [1912] UKLawRpKQB 9; [1912] 2 KB 89.
[19] See R v Inhabitants of Bramely [1795] EngR 4129; (1795) 6 TR 330; 101 ER 579; Batthews v Galindo [1828] EngR 557; (1828) 4 Bing 610; 130 ER 904; Gilbert, above n 14, 97–8.
[20] See John H Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1961) vol 8, §§575, 600, 2227, 2230.
[21] See Ex parte Fernandez [1861] EngR 556; (1861) 10 CB NS 3, 39; [1861] EngR 556; 142 ER 349, 364; Tilley v Tilley [1949] P 240, 248.
[22] See Leach v The King [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305; Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] AC 474.
[23] English Criminal Law Revision Committee, Eleventh Report: Evidence (General), Cmnd 4991 (1972) [147].
[24] See below nn 32–3 and accompanying text; Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52.
[25] Evidence Amendment Act 1853, 16 & 17 Vict, c 83, s 3.
[26] See generally McNicol, above n 4, ch 4; Law Book Company, Laws of Australia, vol 16 (at 6 June 2004) 16 Evidence, ‘Chapter 16.7 Privilege and Public Interest Immunity’ [99]–[104].
[27] See Shenton v Tyler [1939] 1 Ch 620; Rumping v DPP [1964] AC 814.
[28] See McNicol, above n 4, 295. An exception is America, where the privilege is found both in statutory form and at common law: Wigmore, above n 20, vol 8, §2333; Blau v United States, [1951] USSC 6; 340 US 332 (1951).
[29] See Wigmore, above n 20, vol 8, §2227–45; Hawkins v United States, 358 US 74 (1958).
[30] Trammel v United States, [1980] USSC 32; 445 US 40 (1980).
[31] See, eg, Sorby v Commonwealth [1983] HCA 10; (1983) 152 CLR 281; Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1.
[32] See, eg, Warman International Ltd v Envirotech Australian Pty Ltd (1986) 11 FCR 478; McNicol, above n 4, 140–4.
[33] See, eg, Sorby v Commonwealth [1983] HCA 10; (1983) 152 CLR 281; Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1983] HCA 9; (1983) 152 CLR 328.
[34] Coke, above n 12, 6b.
[35] See, eg, Glanville Williams, ‘The Legal Unity of Husband and Wife’ (1947) 10 Modern Law Review 16, 19; Trammel v United States, [1980] USSC 32; 445 US 40, 43–4 (1980); Sir William S Holdsworth, A History of English Law (3rd ed, 1944) vol 9, 197.
[36] Wigmore, above n 20, vol 8, §2227.
[37] Holy Bible (King James version), Old Testament, Genesis II 24; Holy Bible (King James version), New Testament, Matthew XIX 5–6; Mark X 8.
[38] Williams, above n 35, 16.
[39] Holy Bible (King James version), New Testament, Matthew XIX 6; Mark X 9.
[40] Garth E Moore, An Introduction to English Canon Law (1967) 83. See also Bernard A Siegle, Marriage Today (1973) 10.
[41] Rumping v DPP [1964] AC 814, 836–7. See also Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] AC 474, 495.
[42] The common law rejected Roman and ecclesiastical precedents, which extended testimonial privileges and disqualifications to all family members: Wigmore, above n 20; Max Radin, ‘The Privilege of Confidential Communication Between Lawyer and Client’ (1928) 16 California Law Review 487.
[43] See, eg, Holy Bible (King James version), New Testament, Ephesians V 22–3; Colossians III 18; Titus II 5; 1 Corinthians VII 9, 39.
[44] See generally Julius Goebel Jr, Cases and Materials on the Development of Legal Institutions (1949) 444–53.
[45] See R v Crimmins [1959] VicRp 46; [1959] VR 270; Skyes v DPP [1962] AC 528; A v Hayden [1984] HCA 67; (1984) 156 CLR 532, 552.
[46] See James F Stephen, A Digest of the Criminal Law (1877) 93–4; Butterworths, Halsbury ’s Laws of England (3rd ed, 1955) vol 10, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, ‘Chapter 1 Principles of Criminal Liability’ [574].
[47] See Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1st ed, 1769) book 4, 37.
[48] Quoted in Frederick L Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (1922) 55–6.
[49] Quoted in Agnes J Robertson, The Laws of the Kings of England From Edmund to Henry I (1925) 214– 15.
[50] Quoted in Samuel E Thorne, Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England (1968), vol 2, 428–9 (emphasis added, brackets omitted).
[51] Quoted in Henry G Richardson and George O Sayles, Fleta (1955) 92 (emphasis added).
[52] Quoted in Francis M Nichols, Britton (1983) 120.
[53] Sir William Staunford, Les Plees Del Coron (1557) 26b, as referred to in Glanville Williams, above n 35, 26 (fn 29). See also Ferdinando Pulton, De Pace Regis et Regni (1609) 130, which includes a similar statement.
[54] Sir Edward Coke, Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1628) 108.
[55] See, eg, Hale, above n 12, vol 1, 621; Blackstone, above n 47, book 4, 38–9; William O Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors (4th ed, 1865) vol 1, 66.
[56] See, eg, Butterworths, Halsbury ’s Laws of England (3rd ed, 1955) vol 10, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, ‘Chapter 1 Principles of Criminal Liability’ [561]; R v Holley [1963] 1 All ER 106 (editor’s note). See also Law Book Company, Laws of Australia, vol 9 (at 6 June 2004) Criminal Law Principles, ‘Chapter 9.2 Ancillary Liability’ [68]; Ray Watson, Anthony Blackmore and Greg Hosking, Criminal Law (NSW) (2004) ‘2 Crimes Act’ [2.33120].
[57] See R v CAL (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Handley JA, Grove and Ireland JJ, 24 October 1996); R v Brown (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, McInerney, Hulme, and Barr JJ, 9 December 1998).
[58] Montague Lush, The Law of Husband and Wife (4th ed, 1933) 597.
[59] Williams, above n 35, 26.
[60] Victorian Law Reform Commission, Criminal Liability of Married Persons (Special Rules), Report No 3 (1975) [35]–[36].
[61] PJ Pace, ‘Impeding Arrest – A Wife’s Right as a Spouse?’ [1978] Criminal Law Review 82, 84; Williams, above n 35, 26.
[62] See Hawkins, above n 12, Book 2, 320; Blackstone, above n 47, 504; R v Jones [1949] 1 KB 194.
[63] See, eg, Criminal Code Act (NT) s 13(2); Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 347A.
[64] See, eg, Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 337, 338; Criminal Code (WA) s 10(2); Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) s 6(2); Crimes Act 1961 (NZ) s 71(2).
[65] David M Walker, The Oxford Companion to Law (1980) 111.
[66] R v Director of the Serious Fraud Ofice; Ex parte Smith [1993] AC 1, 40.
[67] See R v Scott [1856] EngR 19; (1856) Dears & B 47, 56; [1856] EngR 19; 169 ER 909, 913; John H Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law: Including the Statutes and Judicial Decisions of All the Jurisdictions of the United States and Canada (3rd ed, 1940) vol 8, §2260.
[68] Anonymous (1613) Brownl 47, 47; [1675] EngR 159; 123 ER 656, 656–7 (emphasis added).
[69] Bankrupts Acts, 21 Jac I, c 19, s 6.
[70] Ex parte James (1719) 1 P & Wms 610, 611; [1719] EngR 17; 24 ER 538, 539. It was held that wives could only be examined about their husbands’ ‘goods, effects or estate’.
[71] Marian Committal Statute 1555, 2 & 3 Ph & M, c 10. See generally Holdsworth, above n 35, 178–203.
[72] See generally John H Langbein, Prosecuting Crime in the Renaissance: England, Germany, France (1974) 1–118.
[73] John H Langbein, ‘The Privilege and Common Law Criminal Procedure: The Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries’ in R H Helmholz (ed), The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Its Origins and Development (1997) 82, 83.
[74] See R v Reading (1679) 7 St Tr 259, 296; R v Shaftesbury (1681) 8 St Tr 759, 817.
[75] Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25; (2001) 205 CLR 50, 92.
[76] See Langbein, above n 72, 123.
[77] Michael Dalton, The Countrey Justice (1st ed, 1618).
[78] R v County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee; Ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1948] 1 KB 670, 675.
[79] Coke, above n 12.
[80] Dalton, above n 77, 262.
[81] Ibid 261.
[82] Staunford, above n 53 and accompanying text. Stamford is an alternative spelling of Sir William Staunford’s surname: Walker, above n 65, 1189.
[83] Nichols, above n 52 and accompanying text.
[84] Thorne, above n 50 and accompanying text.
[85] Langbein, above n 73, 91–2.
[86] Dalton, above n 77; Staunford, above n 52, 163.
[87] Shenton v Tyler [1939] 1 Ch 620, 627.
[88] Coke, above n 12, 6b (emphasis added).
[89] ‘This singular condition of the law may perhaps be laid to the blame of Lord Coke’: Wigmore, above n 20, §2228.
[90] See, eg, Mary Grigg’s Case [1803] EngR 20; (1672) T Raym 1; 83 ER 1; Mossar v Ivy (1684) 10 St Tr 555, 627.
[91] See, eg, Dalton, The Countrey Justice (1727) 540–1.
[92] Hale, above n 12, vol 2, 279.
[93] Hale, above n 12, vol 1, 301 (emphasis added).
[94] See, eg, Mary Grigg’s Case [1803] EngR 20; (1672) T Raym 1; 83 ER 1; Hawkins, above n 12; Barker v Dixie (1736) Cas t Hard 264; [1815] EngR 380; 95 ER 171; Gilbert, above n 14; Francis Buller, An Introduction to the Law Relative to Trials at Nisi Prius (1767) 286a.
[95] [1788] EngR 80; (1788) 2 TR 263; 100 ER 143.
[96] Ibid 268; 146. See also ibid 268–9; 146–7 (Grose J).
[97] Samuel Phillipps, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3rd ed, 1817) 67 (emphasis in original).
[98] [1817] EngR 404; (1817) 6 M & S 194; 105 ER 1215.
[99] Ibid 198–200; 1217–18.
[100] Ibid 200–1; 1217–18.
[101] Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] AC 474, 496 (Salmon LJ). See also Riddle v The King [1911] HCA 33; (1911) 12 CLR 622, 628 (Griffith CJ).
[102] See, eg, Starkie, above n 12, 710; Henman v Dickinson (1828) 5 Bing 183; 130 ER 1031.
[103] [1831] EngR 685; (1831) 2 B & Ad 637; 109 ER 1280.
[104] See, eg, Phillipps, above n 97, 69; Richard Burn, Justice of the Peace (1836) vol 1, 1037 (fn b); Richard N Gresley, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence in the Courts of Equity (2nd ed, 1847) 342.
[105] Pitt Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1848) vol 1, §997 (emphasis in original). See also Samuel M Phillipps and Thomas J Arnold, Treatise on the Law of Evidence (10th ed, 1852) vol 1, 73.
[106] See, eg, Mills and Sir William Markby, Roscoe ’s Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius (1 1th ed, 1866) 106. See also James F Stephen, Roscoe ’s Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases (7th ed, 1868) 146.
[108] Ibid 170.
[109] Ibid.
[110] Ibid.
[111] Ibid 167.
[112] Holdsworth, above n 35, 192–4; Bentley v Cooke (1784) 3 Dougl 422; 99 ER 729; Davis v Dinwoody [1792] EngR 3038; (1792) 4 TR 678; 100 ER 1241.
[113] (1803) 8 Ves Jr 405; 32 ER 412.
[114] Ibid 410; 413 (emphasis added).
[115] See, eg, James Wigram, Points in the Law of Discovery (2nd ed, 1840) 80; Sir Henry W Seton, Forms of Decrees in Equity (3rd ed, 1862) vol 2, 1056; William W Kerr, A Treatise on the Law of Discovery (1870) 150; Edward C Dunn and Leonard Field, Practice of The High Court of Chancery (5th ed, 1871) vol 1, 167, 482; Walter S Sichel and William Chance, The Law Relating to Interrogatories, Production, Inspection of Documents and Discovery (1883) 38, 58–9; Ralph Thicknesse, A Digest of the Law of Husband and Wife (1884) 214, 296; Edward Bray, The Principles & Practice of Discovery (1885) 342; John Cutler and Charles F Cagney, Powell’s Principles and Practice of the Law of Evidence (7th ed, 1898) 102; Cecil C M Dale, Charles W Greenwood, Sydney E Williams and Francis A Stringer, Daniell’s Chancery Practice (7th ed, 1901) vol 2, 1579; R E Ross, The Law of Discovery (1912) 256.
[116] See, eg, Taylor, above n 105, vol 1, §1068; Pitt Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (12th ed, 1931) vol 2, § 1453 (original emphasis, citations omitted). See also Thomas Starkie, Practical Treatise of the Law of Evidence (4th ed, 1853) 204 (fn).
[117] See, eg, James F Stephen, Digest of the Law of Evidence (1876) art 120; James E Stephen, Digest of the Law of Evidence (12th ed, 1948) art 129.
[118] [1882] UKLawRpKQB 159; (1882) 10 QBD 110, 112–13 (emphasis added). See also In Re A Debtor (No 7 of 1910) [1910] UKLawRpKQB 74; [1910] 2 KB 59, 64–5.
[119] See, eg, Sidney L Phipson, Law of Evidence (1st ed, 1892) 111, through to, at least, (10th ed, 1963) 264; Sidney L Phipson, Manual of the Law of Evidence (1st ed, 1908) 48, through to, at least, (10th ed, 1972) 99–100; Cockle, Leading Cases and Statutes on the Law of Evidence (1st ed, 1907) 211, through to, at least, (10th ed, 1963) 111.
[120] See, eg, The Earl of Halsbury, The Laws of England (1910) vol 11, Discovery, Inspection, and Interrogatories, ‘Chapter IV Production of Documents for Inspection’ [135]; The Earl of Halsbury, The Laws of England (1910) vol 13, Evidence, ‘Chapter V Witnesses’ [784]; Butterworths, Halsbury’s Laws of England (2nd ed, 1934) vol 10, Discovery, Inspection, and Interrogatories, ‘Chapter IV Production of Documents for Inspection’ [477]; Butterworths, Halsbury’s Laws of England (2nd ed, 1934) vol 13, Evidence, ‘Chapter V Witnesses’ [804]; Butterworths, Halsbury ’s Laws of England (3rd ed, 1955) vol 12, Discovery, Inspection and Interrogatories, ‘Chapter 3 Inspection of Documents’ [72]; vol 15, Evidence, ‘Chapter V Witnesses’ [760]; Butterworths, Halsbury ’s Laws of England (4th ed, 1975) vol 13, Discovery, Inspection and Interrogatories, ‘Chapter 4 Production and Inspection of Documents’ [92]; vol 17, Evidence, ‘Chapter V Witnesses’ [240].
[121] See, eg, Encyclopaedia Britannica (10th ed, 1902) vol 28, Evidence (Law of), ‘V Witnesses’, 340; Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed, 1911) vol 10, Evidence, ‘V Witnesses’, 20.
[122] Criminal Evidence Act 1898, 61 & 62 Vict, c 36.
[123] Leach v The King [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305.
[124] [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305, 309–10.
[125] Ibid 311.
[126] Ibid.
[127] (1912) 7 Cr App R 157, 164.
[129] See R v Lapworth [1931] 1 KB 117. See also R v Algar (1953) 37 Cr App R 200, 206.
[130] Hoskyn [1979] AC 474, 485, 490–1, 493, 496, 508.
[131] Ibid 495.
[132] Ibid 496.
[133] Ibid 501–3. Lord Edmund-Davies ultimately concluded that in cases of inter-spousal violence the considerations which led to the exception to the rule of spousal incompetency also justified an exception to any rule of non-compellability. He distinguished All Saints on the basis that it did not concern this particular exception.
[134] Ibid 502.
[135] Ibid 503.
[136] Leach [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305, 311.
[137] English Law Reform Committee, Privilege in Civil Proceedings, Report No 16, Cmnd 3472 (1967) [9].
[138] Civil Evidence Act 1968 (UK) c 64, s 14 essentially provides that in any context, other than in criminal proceedings, if a person has (or does not have) a privilege against self-incrimination, he or she shall have (or not have) ‘a like’ privilege against spouse-incrimination. It further provides that where any enactment requires a person to provide information, subject to the proviso that it will not be admissible against them in proceedings, the information will, also, be inadmissible in proceedings against his or her spouse. These provisions were replicated in the Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (NI) s 10. See also Coroners (Practice and Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2002 (NI).
[139] United Kingdom, Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 22 February 1968, vol 289, 683.
[140] United Kingdom, Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, 8 February 1968, vol 288, 1348.
[141] See, eg, Theft Act 1968 (UK) c 60, s 31(1); Criminal Damage Act 1971 (UK) c 48, s 9; Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK) c 54, s 71; Representation of the People Act 1983 (UK) c 11, s 141; Children Act 1989 (UK) c 41, s 48(2); Pensions Act 1995 (UK) c 26, s 102(1); Job Seekers Act 1995 (UK) c 18, s 33(9); National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (UK) c 39, s 14(2); European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 (UK) reg 98.
[142] English Criminal Law Revision Committee, above n 23, [169].
[143] Ireland Law Reform Commission, Report on Competence and Compellability of Spouses as Witnesses, Report No 13 (1985), 73.
[144] See, eg, Caroline Fennell, The Law of Evidence in Ireland (1st ed, 1992) 181.
[145] Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1983] HCA 9; (1983) 152 CLR 328, 336–7, 350–1.
[146] Sir Rupert Cross, Evidence (4th ed, 1974) 246fn; Sir Rupert Cross, Evidence (5th ed, 1979) 278fn. See also Sir Rupert Cross, Evidence (1st ed, 1958) 229–30; Sir Rupert Cross and Nancy Wilkins, An Outline of the Law of Evidence (1964) 75–6.
[147] Sir Rupert Cross and Nancy Wilkins, An Outline of the Law of Evidence (3rd ed, 1971) 80; Sir Rupert Cross and Nancy Wilkins, An Outline of the Law of Evidence (4th ed, 1975) 83; Sir Rupert Cross and Nancy Wilkins, An Outline of the Law of Evidence (5th ed, 1980) 100.
[148] See Sir Rupert Cross and Colin Tapper, Cross on Evidence (6th ed, 1985) 384; Sir Rupert Cross and Colin Tapper, Cross on Evidence (7th ed, 1990) 422.
[149] See, eg, Peter Murphy, Blackstone ’s Criminal Practice (1992) 1920–1; Adrian Keane, The Modern Law of Evidence (3rd ed, 1994) 449; Christopher Allen, Practical Guide to Evidence (1998) 288; Paul Matthews and Hodge Malek, Disclosure (2000) [9.093].
[151] Ibid 637–8 (emphasis added).
[152] For sources suggesting that there is no privilege, see above nn 148–9; Richard May, Criminal Evidence (4th ed, 1999) [13-05]; Butterworths, Halsbury’s Law of England (4th ed Reissue, 1990) vol 11(2), Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure, ‘13 Evidence’ [1186]; Peter B Carter, Cases and Statutes on Evidence (2nd ed, 1990) 218. For sources suggesting that the privilege does exist, see Williams, above n 10; Celia Hampton, Criminal Procedure (3rd ed, 1982) 47; Peter Murphy, A Practical Approach to Evidence (2nd ed, 1985) 321; Derek W Elliott, Elliott and Phipson Manual of the Law of Evidence (12th ed, 1987) 151.
[153] Pursuant to s 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (UK) c 60, spouses are competent to testify in all criminal cases but only compellable by the Crown in prosecutions for offences involving inter-spousal violence or child abuse.
[154] Eric Cowsill and John Clegg, Evidence: Law and Practice (1985) 91. See also John A Andrews and Michael Hirst, Criminal Evidence (2nd ed, 1992) 348.
[155] See R v Pitt [1983] QB 25; Williams, above n 10, 430.
[156] See Fitch v Hill, 11 Mass 286 (1814); Stein v Bowman, [1839] USSC 19; 38 US 209, 221 (1839); Graves v United States,1 50 US 118 (1893).
[157] Stein v Bowman, [1839] USSC 19; 38 US 209, 221 (1839); Johnson v State, 94 Ala 53; (1892); Wyatt v United States, [1960] USSC 72; 362 US 525 (1960).
[158] State v Gardner, 1 Root 485 (Conn, 1793); Canton v Bentley, 11 Mass 441 (1814); Fitch v Hill, 11 Mass 286 (1814).
[159] Stein v Bowman, [1839] USSC 19; 38 US 209, 222 (1839).
[160] See, eg, Stewart v Johnson, 18 NJL 87; 3 Harrison 87 (NJ, 1840); Van Cort v Van Cort,, Edw 4 Ch 621; 6 NY Ch R Ann 997 (NY Ch, 1844); State v Welch, 26 Me 30; 45 Am Dec 94 (1846); Funk’s Lessee v Kincaid, 5 Md 404 (1854); State v Bradley, 9 Rich 168; 43 SCL 168 (SC App Law, 1855); State v Dudley, 7 Wis 664 (1858); Commonwealth v Sparks, 7 Allen 534; 89 Mass 534 (1863); State v Wilson; 31 NJ 77 (1864).
[161] State v Briggs, 9 RI 361; 11 Am R 270 (1869) at pp 3–4 of the non-paginated case report held by the author, cited, with approval, in State v Deslovers, 100 A 64, 71–2 (RI, 1917).
[162] 8 Philadelphia Reports 385 (1871).
[163] Ibid 390, 392, 396.
[164] Williams v Georgia, 69 Ga 11, 14 (1882).
[165] Woods v State, 76 Ala 35; 52 Am R 315; (1884) at p 3 of the non-paginated case report held by the author. This ruling was approved in Watson v State, 61 So 334, 335 (Ala, 1913).
[166] State v West, 95 NW 521 (Wis, 1903). The specific edition of Wharton’s Criminal Evidence was not identified in the judgment. However, similar passages appear in the following editions of this leading text: Ronald A Anderson, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (12th ed, 1955) vol 3, [776]; Charles E Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (13th ed, 1972) vol 2, [391].
[167] John McKelvey, Handbook of the Law of Evidence (3rd ed, 1924) 443–4.
[168] Wigmore, above n 20, vol 8, §§2227–45. Wigmore called this the ‘privilege for anti-marital facts’, but it became more commonly known by the name referred to in the text above: see, eg, Trammel v United States, [1980] USSC 32; 445 US 40 (1980).
[169] Shenton v Tyler [1939] 1 Ch 620, 638, 648.
[170] Edmund M Morgan and John M Maguire, Cases and Materials on Evidence (3rd ed, 1951) 365.
[171] See, eg, Funk v United States, [1933] USSC 163; 290 US 371 (1933); Grifin v United States, [1949] USSC 62; 336 US 704 (1949); Lutwak v United States, [1953] USSC 35; 344 US 604 (1953); Hawkins v United States, 358 US 74 (1958); Wyatt v United States, [1960] USSC 72; 362 US 525 (1960).
[172] [1980] USSC 32; 445 US 40 (1980).
[173] Ibid 53.
[174] ‘[The] privilege is invoked ... to exclude evidence of criminal acts’: ibid 51.
[175] See, eg, Re Grand Jury (Malifitano), [1980] USCA3 476; 633 F 2d 276, 280 (3rd Cir, 1980); Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 640 F Supp 988 (ED Mich, 1986).
[176] Re Grand Jury (Hermann & Vannier), 664 F 2d 423, 430 (5th Cir, 1981). See also United States v Brown, [1979] USCA8 481; 605 F 2d 389, 396 (8th Cir, 1979); United States v Smith, [1984] USCA8 796; 742 F 2d 398 (8th Cir, 1984); United States v Van Cauwenberghe, [1987] USCA9 1632; 827 F 2d 424, 431 (9th Cir, 1987); In re Martenson[1986] USCA8 32; , 779 F 2d 461, 464 (8th Cir, 1988); Re Grand Jury, 111 F 3d 1083, 1086–7 (3rd Cir, 1997).
[177] United States v Wooten (Unreported, 21 November 1980, CA6, No 80-5 139); Re Grand Jury Matter, [1982] USCA3 201; 673 F 2d 688 (3rd Cir, 1982); AB v United States, 24 F Supp 2d 488 (D Md, 1998); Re Grand Jury Subpoena, 22 F Supp 2d 507 (D Md, 1998).
[178] Re Grand Jury, 111 F 3d 1083, 1089 (3rd Cir, 1997). See also Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Ford), [1985] USCA2 189; 756 F 2d 249 (2nd Cir, 1985).
[179] [1977] USCA7 714; 568 F 2d 531 (7th Cir, 1977).
[180] Ibid 544.
[181] Ibid, paraphrasing United States v Van Drunen, [1974] USCA7 698; 501 F 2d 1393, 1396 (7th Cir, 1974).
[182] Michael H Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence (5th ed, 2003) vol 1, §505.1.
[183] United States v Yerardi, [1999] USCA1 235; 192 F 3d 14, 19 (1st Cir, 1999).
[184] Which now seems to be generally accepted. See, eg, Graham, above n 182, vol 1, §505.1: ‘The scope of the ... privilege extends only to the right to refuse to answer questions which tend to incriminate the non-testifying spouse’.
[185] See, eg, Gilles v Del Guercio, 150 F Supp 864 (DC Cal, 1957); Volianitis v INS, [1965] USCA9 450; 352 F 2d 766 (9th Cir, 1965); Garcia-Jaramillo v INS, [1979] USCA9 1039; 604 F 2d 1236 (9th Cir, 1979).
[186] See, eg, United States v Morris, 988 F 2d 1335, 1339 (4th Cir, 1993); AB v United States, 24 F Supp 2d 488, 490 (D Md, 1998); Re Grand Jury Subpoena, 22 F Supp 2d 507, 508 (D Md, 1998).
[187] An exception is Peter K Mc Williams, Canadian Criminal Evidence (2nd ed, 1984) 930.
[188] (1880) 20 NBR 40, at p 5 of the non-paginated case report held by the author: ‘Mrs Ellis was not bound to answer the questions put to her on cross-examination. They were … privileged, on the ground that they tended to criminate her husband, Rex v All Saints, Worcester’.
[189] (1884) 10 Ontario Practice Reports 265.
[190] Ibid 266.
[191] (1903) 7 CCC 139, 162–3. The fact that this statement was made in a dissenting judgment does not diminish its persuasive value. The majority did not consider this privilege and its decision is also widely considered to be wrong: McWilliams, above n 187, 909; R v Arneson (1930) 25 Alta LR 125; R v Carter [1970] 5 CCC 155.
[192] (1959) 124 CCC 288, 294.
[193] [1882] UKLawRpKQB 159; (1882) 10 QBD 110, 112–3, referred to in above n 118 and accompanying text.
[194] See Thomson Newspapers v Canada 1990 CanLII 135 (SCC); (1990) 54 CCC (3d) 417, 451; R v S (RJ) (1995) 96 CCC (3d) 1, 29.
[195] See Manitoba (Attorney General) v Kelly (1915) 9 WWR 863, 866. See also Manitoba (Attorney General) v Kelly (1916) 10 WWR 131.
[196] See Bell v Klein (1953) 10 WWR (NS) 324, 329. See also Staples v Isaacs (No 2) [1940] 2 WWR 657, 658.
[197] (1986) 27 CCC (3d) 36, 49–58.
[198] (1997) 6 CR (5th) 82. On 20 November 1997, leave to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court was allowed (226 NR 309), but on 3 May 1999 the appeal was discontinued.
[199] The decision in R v Kabbabe has been cited with approval by other Canadian courts. See, eg, Del Zotto v Canada (1997) 116 CCC (3d) 123; R v Pruden (Unreported, Manitoba Provincial Court, 28 January 2000).
[200] R v S (RJ) (1995) 96 CCC (3d) 1, 29.
[201] R v Grbich [1910] NZGazLawRp 127; (1910) 29 NZLR 1045, 1047.
[202] See, eg, Jack D Willis, Garrow and Willis’s Principles of The Law of Evidence in New Zealand (3rd ed, 1949) 183; (4th ed, 1960) 197; (5th ed, 1966) 243; (6th ed, 1973) 284; Donald L Mathieson, Evidence by Rupert Cross (2nd ed, 1971) 249; (3rd ed, 1979) 258.
[203] See, eg, Petroleum Demand Restraint Act 1981 (NZ) s 18; Commerce Act 1986 (NZ) s 106; Takeovers Act 1993 (NZ) s 11. See also Apple and Pear Marketing Act 1971 (NZ) s 45(b).
[204] [1992] NZHC 228; [1992] 3 NZLR 602.
[205] Ibid 610.
[206] Donald L Mathieson, Evidence by Rupert Cross (4th ed, 1989) 245.
[207] See above nn 150–1 and accompanying text.
[208] Law Commission of New Zealand, The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Preliminary Paper No 25 (1996) 72.
[209] See above nn 144–5 and accompanying text.
[210] Law Commission of New Zealand, Evidence, Report No 55 (1999) 78 and the attached draft Evidence Code s 61(4)(b).
[211] See, eg, Butterworths, The Laws of New Zealand (Service No 29, 5 May 2003), Evidence [138] and Discovery [81].
[212] Queensland and the Northern Territory are the only jurisdictions in which an accused’s spouse is absolutely compellable: Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 8; Evidence Act 1939 (NT) s 9. In Western Australia, a spouse is generally not compellable, although there are specific exceptions: Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 9. In all other jurisdictions spouses are generally compellable, but in most cases the court ‘must’ or ‘may’ excuse them from giving evidence, if certain criteria are met: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 18; Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 18, Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s 18; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 400; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 21.
[213] [1911] HCA 33; (1911) 12 CLR 622.
[214] Ibid 627–9.
[215] Ibid 628.
[216] Ibid 629.
[217] (1939) AR (NSW) 148, 151 (emphasis added).
[219] Ibid 50, citing Riddle v The King [1911] HCA 33; (1911) 12 CLR 622 (above nn 213–16), Phipson (above n 119) and Cliviger [1788] EngR 80; (1788) 2 TR 263; 100 ER 143 (above nn 95–96).
[220] It is submitted that Hanger J’s decision on this point is contrary to the principles of statutory interpretation enunciated by the House of Lords in Leach [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305 (see above nn 123–26) and by the High Court of Australia in Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 192 ALR 561.
[221] Re Intercontinental Development Corporation Pty Ltd (1975) 1 ACLR 253, 259 (emphasis added).
[222] See, eg, Navair Pty Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia [1981] FCA 1; (1981) 52 FLR 177, 193; Metroplaza Pty Ltd v Girvan NS W Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 91, 92; Re New World Alliance Pty Ltd; Syncotex Pty Ltd v Baseler (1993) 47 FCR 90, 96. See also Re Robert Sterling Pty Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 723; Trade Practices Commission v Abbco Iceworks Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1279; (1994) 52 FCR 96, 125, 142; Australian Securities and Investment Commission v United Investment Funds Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 674 (Unreported, Finkelstein J, 4 July 2003) [2].
[223] Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477, 516 (fn 60).
[224] Justice Leslie Katz, ‘The Marital Communications Privilege in NSW’ (1991) 7 Australian Bar Review 1, 18.
[225] Fotis v Favret (Unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, Santow J, 8 May 1996) [3].
[226] Cf Southwell v Maladina [2002] FCA 76 (Unreported, Dowsett J, 5 February 2002) [13]; Sogel ease Australia Ltd v Grifin [2003] NSWSC 178 (Unreported, Palmer J, 29 July 2003) [44]. In these cases the possible or actual existence of the privilege appears to have been completely overlooked.
[227] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v United Investment Funds Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 674 (Unreported, Finkelstein J, 4 July 2003) 2.
[228] Callanan v Bush [2004] QSC 88 (Unreported, Douglas J, 8 April 2004).
[229] In this author’s opinion, the decision runs counter to virtually all of the authorities referred to in this article.
[230] Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s 56(1); Electoral Act 1985 (Tas) s 219(4); Local Government Regulations 1994 (Tas) reg 11; Workers’ Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) s 163(4), prior to amendment by pt 1.19 of the Sexuality Discrimination Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (ACT); Fair Trading (Consumer Afairs) Act 1973 (ACT) s 13(3), prior to amendment by ss 17, 18 of the Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Act 2001 (ACT).
[231] Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 (SA) ss 25(10), 28(13); Coroners Act 1958 (Qld) s 3 3(2), prior to repeal by s 105 of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld); Evidence Act 1971 (ACT) s 57, prior to amendment by pt 2.4 of the Sexuality Discrimination Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (ACT); Parole Act 1976 (ACT) s 19(3)(b), prior to repeal by s 111 of the Rehabilitation of Ofenders (Interim) Act 2001 (ACT).
[232] See, eg, Ian R Freckelton, ‘Witnesses and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination’ (1985) 59 Australian Law Journal 204, 207; David Williams, Investigations by Administrative Agencies (1987) 103; Mark Aronson, Jill B Hunter and Mark S Weinberg, Litigation: Evidence and Procedure (4th ed, 1988) 276; Shane Simpson, David Bailey and Ewan Evans, Discovery and Interrogatories (2nd ed, 1990) 201; McNicol, above n 4, 224–7; Chris Corns, ‘The Big Four: Privileges and Immunities’ (1994) 27 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 133, 147; Andrew L C Ligertwood, Australian Evidence (3rd ed, 1998) §5.78; Graham B Roberts, Evidence: Proof and Practice (1998) 180; Stephen Donaghue, Royal Commissions and Permanent Commission of Inquiry (2001) 85; Butterworths, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, vol 13 (at 26 November 2003) 195 Evidence, ‘Chapter V Witnesses’ [195-7410]; Law Book Company, The Laws of Australia, vol 16 (at 6 June 2004) 16 Evidence, ‘Chapter 16.7 Privilege and Public Interest Immunity’ [106].
[233] James A Gobbo, Evidence by Rupert Cross (1st ed, 1970) 289; James A Gobbo, David Byrne and John D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (2nd ed, 1980) 267; David Byrne and John D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (3rd ed, 1986) 627; David Byrne and John D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (4th ed, 1991) 687–8; John D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (5th ed, 1996) 682; John D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (6th ed, 2000) 694–5; David Byrne and John D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (Aust ed, Service 80, April 2004) [25150], see also [25075]. Surprisingly, none of the editions cite any relevant cases apart from R v All Saints [1817] EngR 404; (1817) 6 M & S 194, 200–1; [1817] EngR 404; 105 ER 1215, 1217–18.
[234] References in this article to the Un iform Evidence Acts means the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), Evidence Act 1995 (ACT) and Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), which are almost identical.
[235] Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; (1997) 189 CLR 520, 562–3.
[236] Uniform Evidence Acts s 4. In particular, the Acts do not apply to persons or bodies that are not ‘required to apply the rules of evidence’, such as most tribunals and commissions of inquiry: Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (5th ed, 2002) 17–24; Jill Anderson, Jill Hunter and Neil Williams, The New Evidence Law: Annotations and Commentary on the New Evidence Acts (2002) 13–20.
[237] Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49; Anderson, Hunter and Williams, above n 236, 42–4, 450–2; Odgers, above n 236, 42–4, 406–7.
[238] Odgers, above n 236, 407.
[239] Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1077; (2000) 50 NSWLR 640; John D Heydon, A Guide to the Evidence Acts 1995 (NSW) and (Cth) (2nd ed, 1997) 4–9; Odgers, above n 236, lv–lvii; Anderson, Hunter and Williams, above n 236, xix–xxi.
[240] Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, Report No 26: Interim (1985) vol 1, 489. See also Ian Freckelton and T H Smith, Privilege, ALRC Research Paper No 16 (1983) 88–9.
[241] Anderson, Hunter and Williams, above n 236, 456. See also Odgers, above n 236, 408.
[242] Leach [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305, 311; Hawkins v Sturt [1992] NZHC 228; [1992] 3 NZLR 602, 610.
[243] Law Commission of New Zealand, above n 208, 117.
[244] It also accords with the view expressed by Lord Gardiner LC during debates on the British Evidence Act 1968, see above n 139. See also Fotis v Favret (Unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, Santow J, 8 May 1996).
[245] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 400; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 21. Commentary in this article on s 18 and associated provisions of the Uniform Evidence Acts is generally applicable to these comparable statutory provisions.
[246] R v Glasby [2000] NSWCCA 83; (2000) 115 A Crim R 465, 476. See also Anderson, Hunter and Williams, above n 236, 43; Odgers, above n 236, 42.
[247] Odgers, above n 236, 27.
[248] ALRC, above n 240, vol 1, 289.
[249] R v Ireland [1970] HCA 21; (1970) 126 CLR 321, 335 (Barwick CJ). See also Leach v The King (1912) 7 Cr App R 157, 164 (Earl Loreburn LC).
[250] See, eg, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) s 34G; Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) s 30; Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 68; Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 151BUF, 155(7), 159; Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ss 197, 206, 271. Cf the statutory provisions referred to above at nn 138, 141, 230.
[251] Mollwo, March and Co v The Court of Wards [1872] EngR 30; (1872) LR 4 PC 419, 437; Johnson v The Queen [1976] HCA 44; (1976) 136 CLR 619, 664. See also Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477, 505–6: ‘The circumstance that Parliament (or the drafter) assumed that the antecedent law differed from the law as the Court finds it to be is not a reason for the Court refusing to give effect to its view of the law. Parliament does not change the law simply by betraying a mistaken view of it’ (quotations and citations omitted).
[252] Leach [1912] UKLawRpAC 17; [1912] AC 305, 311; Hawkins v Sturt [1992] NZHC 228; [1992] 3 NZLR 602, 610. See also Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2002] HCA 49; (2002) 192 ALR 561.
[253] Evidence (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2003 (HK), inserting s 65A in the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8).
[254] Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) s.65.
[255] Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, Report on Competence and Compellability of Spouses in Criminal Proceedings (Topic 18) (1988) 133.
[256] Christopher B Mueller and Laird C Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence (2002) vol 2, §206. See also Trammel[1980] USSC 32; , 445 US 40, 48 (1980).
[257] Sir Rupert Cross, Evidence (1958) 229–30. See also the Australian editions of Cross on Evidence, above n 233.
[258] See the references above nn 137–43.
[259] Murphy v Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, [1964] USSC 136; 378 US 52, 55 (1964); Brannigan v Davison [1997] AC 238, 249; Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74; (1993) 178 CLR 477, 498.
[260] George P Fletcher, Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships (1993) 81.
[261] Amanda H Frost, ‘Updating the Marital Privileges: A Witness-Centred Rationale’ (1999) 14 Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 1, 29.
[262] See, eg, David Louisell, ‘Confidentiality, Conformity, and Confusion: Privileges in Federal Court Today’ (1956) 31 Tulane Law Review 101, 109–10; Richard O Lempert, ‘A Right to Every Woman’s Evidence’ (1981) Iowa Law Review 725, 731.
[263] Frost, above n 261, 31.
[264] Cross, above n 257, 230.
[265] See, eg, Police (Complaints and Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1985 (SA) ss 25(10), 28(13).
[266] See, eg, International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, r 75(1); United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor, Regulation No 2001/10 on the Establishment of a Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, s 17.2 <http://worldlii.org.tp.legis.consol_reg/2001/10.html> at 6 June 2004.
[267] Trammel[1980] USSC 32; , 445 US 40, 48 (1980).