The Gazette 1952-1955

preserved exactly as received. He had examined them in detail. Mr. Jones.—Are you going to produce these objects, Mr. Budd ?—I object to producing the objects on the ground that the objects were received from a client at an interview at which my professional advice was sought; and under the common law rule o f privilege and to protect the sanctity o f the relationship existing between solicitor and client. Mr. Budd added the objects were privileged from production. He was prepared to say they were tangible objects which were not written documents. Mr. Jones said that he wished to quote authorities on which they asked Mr. Budd to produce these objects. He quoted a judgment o f Lord Buck- master, who said that the relationship o f solicitor and client being once established, was not a necessary conclusion that whatever conversation ensued was protected from disclosure. Throughout the whole authorities he (Mr. Jones) had consulted, he had been able to discover that privilege was strictly confined to communication either in writing or verbally. Nowhere was there any mention of objects. Mr. Budd then left the witness box and addressing the Court, said that he had given evidence under the Crown Office subpoenas, and, as a solicitor o f the Supreme Court, he thought it right that certain identifiable objects not documents which he had received on May 4 were privileged to pro­ tection, a privilege which protected all communi­ cations between solicitor and client. It has been established as a principle o f public policy that confidential communications should be liable to protection. He submitted that the circumstances in which the objects came into his possession were clearly privileged against disclosure. He received the objects from the hands o f one o f the accused persons who was a client on the day the object was handed over, and at a time when he came for professional advice. The object clearly came into his possession on a privileged occasion and was protected from production under the common law of England to preserve the sanctity o f relationship between solicitor and client. Could it be said, asked Mr. Budd, that a word, whether written or spoken was protected and an object was not protected ? That distinction could not be drawn. A document might be as much an article as a gun, a dagger, or a knife. A perjured affidavit was a thing, something tangible like bank­ notes and false books o f account. They were all objects, and he thought the distinction had been improperly called in this case. Mr. Budd said that if a solicitor could not retain an article which came to him as the sacred relationship between himself and his client, the whole basis of that

relationship would be destroyed. It was obviously in the highest interests o f justice and the highest interests o f the State that the confidential relation­ ship between solicitor and client should be absolutely inviolate, and the solicitor should be able to receive information and objects without being constrained to produce them. That was “ very very vitally important indeed.” The object, said Mr. Budd, has been subject to much anxious thought by him as solicitor for the defence; and it might be that the object would be produced by a witness for the defence and be relied upon in some extent to estab­ lish the innocence of his clients. The prosecution were asking him to give up something which he might require to establish his clients’ innocence. The Court was being asked to decide a very difficult problem, but the solution was a perfectly simple one. The proper person to decide was the judge at the court of trial. The object had been preserved and would be preserved in future. Mr. Budd added that, on his former oath, the objects were a handbag with contents which were too numerous to specify. Mr. Jones—Do some o f these articles consist o f something other than written communications ?— Yes, I am prepared to say that. Mr. Budd refused to answer any further questions saying he claimed privilege. The Chairman, after consulting with the Clerk (Mr. C. F. Johnson) announced that the Bench found that the objects were the subject of privilege. {The Times Newspaper, 21st May 1953). The following list of the main reference numbers o f the classification scheme adopted in the Library may be o f assistance to members. The text books are arranged on the shelves in the order indicated by reference numbers. Class Subject. 340.14 —Jurisprudence. 340.3 —Evidence. 340.4 —Statute Law. 340.9 —History of Law (by country). 341 —Public International Law. 341.5 —Private International Law. 342 —Constitutional Law 343 —Criminal Law. 343.9 —Justice of the Peace. 344 —Real Property. 344.6 —Landlord and Tenant.—Rent Acts. 15 LIBRARY Classification o f Books