“A communication once privileged is always privileged.”
Lord Cockburn in Bullock V. Corrie[1]
(Published In All India Reporter, Nagpur
---
In creating more exceptions to the preservation of the ‘Attorney-Client Privilege’, (called as ‘The Privilege’ in this legal notes) Lord Thorpe, in Essex County Council,[2] took the bold step in giving the ruling that in view of the fact that ‘welfare of the child is of paramount consideration to the Courts’, Attorneys have ‘the duty to disclose the medical and other reports’ that may contain ‘statements adverse to their clients’ interests’.
While not accepting that the privilege cannot be displaced under the Act without legislative process, Lord Thorpe declared that ‘the judge in wardship (proceedings ) held a responsibility to investigate any material relevant to the determination of the welfare of the child, whether put before him by the parties or in adversarial range or not. Where the Court considers the welfare of the child, the power it holds enables it to override the privilege which is set up to preserve or enhance the adversarial position of one of the parties’.[3]
The above ruling was given on the following facts. The Local Council applied for care order in respect of a chilled of a mother who was already a drug addict. The mother opposed the disclosure of the contents of a Report, already handed over to Legal Counsel of her, prepared by a consultant psychiatrist on the general and behavior and tendency of drug addicts in matters of protecting the welfare of a childe as there were some adverse remarks about her conduct and behavior.
Lord Thorpe, in giving his ruling, did not follow the opposite view of Lord Douglas Brown in Baking and Dagenham London Borough Council V. O.[4] but ‘picked up where Lord Johnson[5] left’ and further developed the law on this point.
The disclosure of the contents of the Report was allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment