About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

16 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 55 (1996)
The Unavailability to Corporations of the Privilege against Self-Incrimination: A Comparative Examination

handle is hein.journals/nylsintcom16 and id is 61 raw text is: THE UNAVAILABILITY TO CORPORATIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION Based on EPA v. Caltex, High Court of Australia* Norman M. Garland** I. INTRODUCTION The High Court of Australia's decision' denying the availability of the * 178 C.L.R. 477 (1993) (Austl.). The questions on appeal before the High Court of Australia arose out of a prosecution by the appellant, the Environmental Protection Authority, of the respondent, Caltex Refining Co. Pty. Ltd., for eleven pollution offenses of discharging grease and oil into the ocean and several licensing breaches under the Clean Waters Act 1970 and the State Pollution Control Commission Act 1970. Following the commencement of the prosecution, the EPA served on Caltex two notices, each requiring Caltex to produce identical documents relating to the pollution offenses. The first notice was a notice pursuant to § 29(2)(a) of the Clean Waters Act 1970 ... and the second was a notice to produce pursuant to the Rules of the Land and Environment Court. . .. Id. at 486. The EPA's sole purpose for executing these notices was to obtain evidence and information to use in the prosecution against Caltex. In response, Caftex challenged the issuance of the notices. The trial court held that Caltex was required to produce the documents requested in the notices, but submitted certain questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal for determination. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that Caltex as an incorporated company is entitled to a privilege against self-incrimination and that Caltex did not have to produce documents in response to the notices. The High Court reversed that decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. ** Professor of Law, Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles. The author is indebted to Vincent Del Buono, for his prodding; Professor David E. Aaronson of Washington College of Law, American University, for his penetrating criticism and suggestions; Ms. Romy Schneider, Southwestern University School of Law, Class of 1996, for her research assistance and other input; Diana Spielberger, for her editorial suggestions; and his wife, Melissa Grossan, for her editorial suggestions. 1. Caltex, 178 C.L.R. 477. The Justices of the High Court of Australia delivered four separate judgments in Caltex. The judgment authored by Chief Justice Mason and Justice

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most