[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

Summary of Questions

Chapter 2

1 Is the privilege against self-incrimination effective in protecting valid interests?

Chapter 3

2 Can the interests the privilege protects be adequately safeguarded by abrogation and the provision of immunities in place of the privilege?

Chapter 4

3 Is the privilege compatible with te ao Mäori?

Chapter 5

4 To what extent, and in which ways, can the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 shape legislative provisions affecting the privilege and influence their interpretation?

Chapter 6

5 Should the privilege in civil proceedings be removed by legislation?

Chapter 7

6 Should the lesser known limbs of the privilege against self-incrimination, the privileges against liability to a civil penalty, forfeiture, and ecclesiastical censure, be removed by legislation?

7 Should the penalty privilege extend to liability for compensatory and punitive damages?

Chapter 8

8 Should the privilege preventing the production of documentary evidence be removed by legislation?

9 Should the privilege apply to real evidence?

10 Should the privilege apply to a non-verbal action intended as an assertion?

Chapter 9

11 Should the privilege for bodies corporate be removed by legislation?

Chapter 10

12 Should the privilege apply to protect the claimant’s spouse from incrimination?

Chapter 11

13 Should the privilege apply to protect the claimant from extraterritorial liability to prosecution or a civil penalty? Should the courts have a discretion to uphold or not uphold the privilege when the claimant faces extraterritorial liability?

Chapter 12

14 In which particular circumstances should the privilege be removed by legislation, how should this be done, and what kinds of immunities should be offered in place of the privilege?

Chapter 13

15 Is the removal of the privilege, and its replacement with a partial use immunity for oral disclosures, justified in the detection of serious fraud?

16 Should the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 be amended and to what effect?

Chapter 14

17 When should a legislative provision be interpreted as removing the privilege?

Chapter 15

18 Should the Australian approach – of requiring the courts to give a person who makes self-incriminating disclosures in proceedings a certificate containing a use and use fruits immunity – be adopted in New Zealand? If so, what modifications, if any, should be made?