103 / 266
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).
LIBRARY
Classification o f Books
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