Beazley v Steinhardt [1999] FCA 447

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Beazley v Steinhardt [1999] FCA 447

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – whether privileged documents in advancement of an ulterior purpose – whether admissible evidence to prove ulterior purpose – whether Judge can view documents to assist in the determination of privilege – meaning of "defrauds" in s 29D of the Crimes Act Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501 Carter v Northmore Hale Davy and Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121 Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 R v Nguyen & Phan [1997] 1 VR 386 R v Tu Van Tran (1997) 96 A CrimR 53 Taylor v the Queen (1997) 6 TasR 310 R v Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 Barker v R (1994) 127ALR 280 Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 BARRY ALBERT BEAZLEY & DOREEN BEAZLEY v WAYNE MICHAEL STEINHARDT QG 84 OF 1998 DOWSETT J 14 APRIL 1999 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 84 OF 1998

BETWEEN: BARRY ALBERT BEAZLEY

First Applicant

DOREEN BEAZLEY

Second Applicant

AND: WAYNE MICHAEL STEINHARDT

Respondent

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 APRIL 1999

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The matter be stood over for further consideration. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 84 OF 1998

BETWEEN: BARRY ALBERT BEAZLEY

First Applicant

DOREEN BEAZLEY

Second Applicant

AND: WAYNE MICHAEL STEINHARDT

Respondent

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE: 14 APRIL 1999

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Application 1 This is an application by Barry Albert Beazley and Doreen Beazley to review the decision of Wayne Michael Steinhardt, a police officer, to seize, pursuant to a search warrant, certain documents in respect of which they claim legal professional privilege. The respondent alleges that the documents were made in furtherance of a criminal or illegal purpose, namely to defraud the Commonwealth of Australia and that privilege does not attach thereto. Alternatively, the appellants seek appropriate declarations as to their claim, relying on s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Numerous observations made by the majority of the High Court in Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501 suggest that proceedings for declaratory relief are more appropriate than are proceedings for judicial review. As I understand it, the parties agree that I should dispose of the matter pursuant to s 39B(1A)(c).