The privilege against self-incrimination privilege is a fundamental principle of law. It is a relatively well-known privilege. In common parlance, it is sometimes described as “pleading the fifth”, a reference to invoking the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which allows a defendant to remain silent if called to give evidence. In more colourful language, it has been described as the principle that “no person should be obliged to give themselves away”1. Elsewhere, the privilege has been framed:
If you are going to bring a criminal charge, or if I have reason to think a criminal charge is going to be brought against me, I will hold my tongue. Prove what you can, but I am protected from furnishing evidence against myself out of my own mouth.2
The decision in Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Ebert [2024] QSC 297 has provided the forum for an interesting, if not unusual, discussion of the bounds of self-incrimination privilege. Zuce Tech Pty Ltd (Zuce) operated a business that involved supplying vehicle tuning services. Mr Ebert was a general manager of Zuce. Zuce alleged, among other things, that Mr Ebert had unlawfully removed Zuce’s stock and equipment from Zuce’s premises.
Zuce sought an interlocutory injunction against Mr Ebert for the immediate return of its property. In resisting that injunction, Mr Ebert argued that being required to return the stock and equipment, pending a trial, would offend his privilege against self-incrimination, given he had already been subject to a search warrant. Mr Ebert argued that if he was required to return the property, that might be considered self-incriminatory in any criminal proceedings brought against him.
The central question, in relation to self-incrimination privilege, was whether the privilege could extend to protect someone from having to produce a physical item (or “thing”), rather than giving evidence or producing a document (which are the more orthodox occasions where the privilege is enlivened). Mr Ebert relied heavily on a High Court statement of self-incrimination privilege:
It has been a firmly established rule of the common law, since the seventeenth century, that no person can be compelled to incriminate himself. A person may refuse to answer any question, or to produce any document or thing, if to do so “may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal.3
After a detailed consideration of Australian and overseas authorities, Justice Freeburn concluded that Mr Ebert did not have the benefit of the privilege against self-incrimination. His Honour relevantly found:
- there was no clear authority that self-incrimination privilege could extend to a physical item or “thing”. Relevantly, His Honour cast doubt on whether the reference to a “thing” in the above extract applied to physical items, or possibly, to other records such as tape recordings, in which a person’s testimony could convict them “out of their own mouth”4;’
- to the contrary, the law generally permits a person being required under compulsion to produce “real” evidence, such as a fingerprint analysis or a DNA sample. The privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to such evidence;
- the commonly asserted rationales for self-incrimination privilege, such as discouraging ill-treatment of suspects, cannot be reconciled with an obligation to produce a “thing”; and
- modern authorities dealing with self-incrimination privilege tend to support the view that the privilege is directed towards testimonial evidence, rather than items which “speak for themselves”5 and which exist independent of the will of a defendant.6
The decision in Zuce is an important reminder of the complexities of self-incrimination privilege, particularly where criminal and civil proceedings occur simultaneously. The decision in Zuce highlights that self-incrimination is privilege is somewhat narrower than might be thought and that careful consideration must be given when asserting and proving the existence of the privilege.
1Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press, 1769) vol IV, 293.
2Lamb v Munster (1882) 10 QBD 110, 113.
3Sorby v Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281, 288 (Mason, Wilson and Dawson JJ agreed).
4Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Ebert [2024] QSC 297, [57].
5Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477, 527.
6Zuce Tech Pty Ltd v Ebert [2024] QSC 297, [77].
To read more about McCullough Robertson’s White-Collar Crime expertise, click here.
