Correll v Attorney General of NSW [2007] NSWSC 1385

Reported Decision : 180 A Crim R 212

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Correll v Attorney General of NSW [2007] NSWSC 1385 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 23/11/07

JUDGMENT DATE : 17 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1

DECISION : 1. Declare that the second defendant erred in ; (a) ruling that; (i) s 33 of the Coroners Act did not entitle her to consider as an objection there under the objection to questioning made by the plaintiff on 11 December 2006 recorded at T 11.12 and following; (ii) That she did not, for the purposes of s 33 of the Coroners Act, need to consider whether any question of the plaintiff concerning the manner and cause of the death of Rachelle Childs might criminate or tend to criminate the plaintiff of an offence,; (b) not ruling that the objection in (a)(i) was properly made for the purposes of s 33 of the Coroners Act; 2. Declare that the second defendant erred in; (a) ruling that; (i) s 33 of the Coroners Act did not entitle her to consider as an objection there under the objection to questioning made by the plaintiff on 12 December 2006 recorded at T 28.37 and following,; (ii) that she did not, for the purposes of s 33 of the Coroners Act, need to consider whether any question asked of the plaintiff concerning his movements and activity in the week from Sunday 3 June 2001 to 10 June 2001, insofar as it was relevant to the manner and cause of the death of Rachelle Childs, might criminate or tend to criminate the plaintiff of an offence,; (b) not ruling that the objection in (a)(i) was properly made for the purposes of s 33 of the Coroners Act; 3. Declare that the second defendant erred in ruling that each of the questions asked of the plaintiff on 15 and 21 December 2006; (a) to which objection was taken for the purposes of s 33 of the Coroners Act, and; (b) which the plaintiff was required by the second defendant to answer, was not a question which might criminate or tend to criminate the plaintiff of an offence; 4. Declare that the plaintiff was entitled to decline to answer each of the questions to which objection referred to in prayers 1, 2 and 3 was taken; 5. Order that the plaintiff not be examined in respect of the "significant development" referred to by counsel assisting the Coroner in the transcript of proceedings on; 20 November 2006, at T 3.47 and/or; 11 December 2006 at T 6.21,; unless and until that "significant development" has been disclosed to him on reasonable notice