The controversial case of lawyer X: Should lawyers be prevented from acting as human sources?

Methven, E

The controversial case of lawyer X: Should lawyers be prevented from acting as human sources?

Methven, E

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Alternative Law Journal, 2019, 44 (2), pp. 93 - 99
Issue Date:: 2019-06-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Microsoft Word XML

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionMicrosoft Word XML (53.69 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Methven, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3428-3905	en_US
dc.date.available	2021-04-27T19:03:21Z
dc.date.issued	2019-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Alternative Law Journal, 2019, 44 (2), pp. 93 - 99	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1037-969X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/132857
dc.description.abstract	© The Author(s) 2019. This article addresses whether there are sufficient constraints on legal professionals acting as police informants, following the controversial ‘Lawyer X’ case. It examines key observations of the High Court of Australia in AB v CD; EF v CD [2018] HCA 58 relating to lawyers’ and barristers’ duties to their clients and to the court. It argues that existing professional rules and common law duties are insufficient to prevent legal advocates from acting as human sources. The author also suggests implications arising from the decision for the application of public interest immunity to human sources.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Alternative Law Journal	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1037969X19846273	en_US
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.title	The controversial case of lawyer X: Should lawyers be prevented from acting as human sources?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	44	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	1606 Political Science	en_US
utslib.for	2201 Applied Ethics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	44	en_US

Abstract:

© The Author(s) 2019. This article addresses whether there are sufficient constraints on legal professionals acting as police informants, following the controversial ‘Lawyer X’ case. It examines key observations of the High Court of Australia in AB v CD; EF v CD [2018] HCA 58 relating to lawyers’ and barristers’ duties to their clients and to the court. It argues that existing professional rules and common law duties are insufficient to prevent legal advocates from acting as human sources. The author also suggests implications arising from the decision for the application of public interest immunity to human sources.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/132857