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]

Marriage counsellor claims privilege in trial

Brisbane judge has reserved his decision on whether a marriage counsellor should have to testify at Gerard Baden-Clay's murder trial.

Baden-Clay is accused of murdering his wife Allison in April last year.

The former real estate agent was in the dock in the Supreme Court today for a pre-trial hearing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-01/marriage-counsellor-claims-privilege-in-murder-trial/4991272?s...

I think that is the crux of the matter, the counsellor can claim privilege, but the court can overturn that privilege. The above news story dated 1/10. Has the Brisbane judge made his decision?

[catsnknots]

---

@freddie*rooster wrote:

EM I believe Bayden-Clay through his counsel has asked for the information sort to be released to the Court. So he's obviously confident it is favourable to his case.In this particular case, I can't see why it wouldn't be released in view of the facts, that being, one of the parties is deceased, and the other is accused of murder.

Are preists bound to release information from confessional admissions?

---

If it is his private counseling information that he wants released I would worry that he had long planned this and actually gone to the therapist with an agenda in mind... 

If he wants his wife's personal counseling to be released he obviously thinks that she was such a hopeless case that he can use it in forming another theory. 

The thing with Relationships Australia is that if there can't be an agreement via their means it often is because one party is being objectionable. This organisation was designed to be an aid for divorce courts in the hope that less families and children would end up going through the horrible experience of a court case. It is not a place that most people will go when they are looking for a personal therapist. 

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I didn't realize the link was so old. It will be interesting to see what was or is decided.

[cherry*135]

 Here is some more info, dated 3 Oct. Headline is a bit sensationalised.

Allison and Gerard Baden-Clay counsellor could face contempt for not testifying

Prosecutors want Ms Ritchie [family counsellor] to testify at Baden-Clay's murder trial following the death of his wife, but she has flagged her intention to claim the sessions were privileged.

Justice Glenn Martin said if a decision was made that the counselling sessions were admissible, it was possible Ms Ritchie could be in contempt if she declined to give evidence.

Justice Martin stressed he only raised the issue of contempt in the context of examining all possible outcomes.

He also raised concerns that legal argument over counselling sessions attended by the Baden-Clays could delay the case.

Barrister George Kalimnios, for Relationships Australia, said it was ultimately up to a counsellor to decide on confidentiality.

Prosecutors will file an application for a pre-trial hearing on the issue, and Mr Kalimnios has until September 18 to submit an outline of arguments.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/allison-and-gerard-badenclay-counsellor-could-face-con...

[*elizabeths-mum*]

It provides all sorts of relationships counseling though, Freddie, parent/child including developing relationships with step children.
They seem to be faster to get to see as well. At one stage when the doves were fighting in the 'Elizabeth's mum' dovecote, we went on a waiting list for months to see a Uniting Church agency counsellor and they rang one day ( after the crisis was passed) to say they had an appointment suddenly available in 2 hours time. (on a week day in working hours).

[freddie*rooster]

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

---

@freddie*rooster wrote:

EM I believe Bayden-Clay through his counsel has asked for the information sort to be released to the Court. So he's obviously confident it is favourable to his case.In this particular case, I can't see why it wouldn't be released in view of the facts, that being, one of the parties is deceased, and the other is accused of murder.

Are preists bound to release information from confessional admissions?

---

If it is his private counseling information that he wants released I would worry that he had long planned this and actually gone to the therapist with an agenda in mind... 

If he wants his wife's personal counseling to be released he obviously thinks that she was such a hopeless case that he can use it in forming another theory. 

The thing with Relationships Australia is that if there can't be an agreement via their means it often is because one party is being objectionable. This organisation was designed to be an aid for divorce courts in the hope that less families and children would end up going through the horrible experience of a court case. It is not a place that most people will go when they are looking for a personal therapist. 

---

Cat, yes I believe it is private counseling information he has asked to be released, and yes he has demonstrated cunningness throughout this case, so my guess is he believes the contents would be advantageous to his murder case.

[toon_town_nutter]

So one day RA lawyer says they're not admissible and a short time later states confidentiality is up to the individual counsellor. That's a big legislative change made real quick.

[cherry*135]

Yes, he wouldn't be pushing for it to be released if he didn't think it would suit his agenda. Would he know what was said in Allison's session.. may have done, if she spoke to him about it afterwards.

The counsellor in one of those links, says that she feels people wont go to counsellors if they  what they say in the sessions aren't kept confidential.. good point?

[*elizabeths-mum*]

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.

[cherry*135]

Any counsellor can claim privilege toon, which is what this counsellor has done. Only the court can overturn that privilege. As far as I can see (on the net), the Judge hasn't made his decision on this yet. If the judge overturns the privilege, he said in one of those links that the counsellor could be in contempt of court, if she still refuses to give the information.

The media are beating it up a bit.