How far should confidentiality go?

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Baden Clay case:
George Kilimnios, barrister for Relationships Australia Queensland, said the Family Law Act states that communications between family counsellors and clients are not admissible in the court.

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/gerard-baden-clay-urges-court-to-allow-family-counsellor...

[cherry*135]

We had a long thread on this case em, back when Allison's body was found. Strife happened over people saying guilty etc.

We have to be mindlful that he has been indicted on a murder charge.. court case will determine guilty or not.

[freddie*rooster]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
I wonder if it should be a law that crimes with names and details shouldn't be published in the media until after the court case?
From what I have read, I would assume guilt, yet that goes against the innocent until proven guilty. I get an impression others also are thinking guilty.

---

True EM, plus there are sites dedicated to these types of cases, where verified Doctor's, Lawyers, Councilors and such post. They are very interesting for the tyre kickers, such as me, I have often wondered how a jury could be chosen with some of these high profile cases.

[toon_town_nutter]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Any counsellor can claim privilege toon

---

Yeah but in the link in the OP RA Barrister says communication is inadmissable. 

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I didn't know about the thread, although I imagine it would have been discussed fully, but am very aware that it is up to the court to decide and feel some shame that I am swayed by what is published before any evidence is even presented.

I wanted to make that point on another thread...and missed.

[cherry*135]

---

@toon_town_nutter wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

Any counsellor can claim privilege toon

---

Yeah but in the link in the OP RA Barrister says communication is inadmissable. 

---

Yes, I saw that. imo the media is beating it up abit. In that news story they didn't even mention the counsellor claiming 'privilege'.

Nor a judge is considering his decision on that.

[freddie*rooster]

Under the circumstances of this case, where you have a murder and a murder charge I can't see why the RA counselor can't be subpoenaed, it's a bit of a joke really.

[cherry*135]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
I didn't know about the thread, although I imagine it would have been discussed fully, but am very aware that it is up to the court to decide and feel some shame that I am swayed by what is published before any evidence is even presented.

I wanted to make that point on another thread...and missed.

---

Don't mention sub-judice (that topic covered). We can't help but be swayed I guess in this case, with the murder of a lovely Mum with 3 little girls.

If you are interested in this case.. aussiecriminals and websleuths sites are worth reading. Probably too much info on there now to read right back to the start, but should get interesting again when this case goes to trial next year... a few professionals (medical, law) on there giving their  personal opinions is interesting.

[cherry*135]

---

@freddie*rooster wrote:

Under the circumstances of this case, where you have a murder and a murder charge I can't see why the RA counselor can't be subpoenaed, it's a bit of a joke really.

---

It is up to the judge now isn't it?  If he decides to overturn the counsellors 'privelege' she would be required to give the information.

If she still refuses she could be charged contempt of court (not sure what that entails).

Maybe it woudl be better for Allison if the details were not released? She is not here to give a more indepth explanation of what she said in those sessions.