Access to anthropological evidence and documents created in native title litigation
Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents. By examining recent decisions dealing with the Hearne v Street obligation, non-party access requests, and legal professional privilege, t...
| Published in: | The University of Queensland Law Journal |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Queensland Press
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v41i2.6081 http://ecite.utas.edu.au/151878 |
| Summary: | Documents are critical in native title litigation. This article explores the different methods of, and common problems encountered when, accessing such documents. By examining recent decisions dealing with the Hearne v Street obligation, non-party access requests, and legal professional privilege, this paper explores how the Court has grappled with the translation of general principles of practice to the unique context of native title litigation. It observes the Court has refused to create special native title rules, but rather has pragmatically applied general principles to native title matters on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, close attention to these judicial developments is necessary, lest the interests of ones clients, or of First Nations persons, be adversely affected by inappropriate document disclosure. |
|---|