Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by kdtsh on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @10:50PM
(#19508748)
I suppose what I meant to say was ‘in a criminal case’. You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in non-criminal cases in the US too, the fifth amendment provides for protection only in criminal cases. I’m not sure if you can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in criminal cases in Australia, but in any case, royal commissions are not criminal cases, they’re commissions with quasi-judicial Powers (mainly because they have the power to compel people to do produce evidence, etc.)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by danieltillett on Thursday March 28, 2019 @01:21AM
(#19509491)
No you can’t be compelled to give evidence against yourself in a normal criminal case. You can be compelled to give evidence in a royal commission hearing and that evidence can be used to prosecute you in a subsequent criminal case.
Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by zaphirplane on Thursday March 28, 2019 @08:33AM
(#19511521)
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.lawyersweekly.com.au/pol...
“Section 6DD of the Act provides that, where a witness is compelled by a summons to give evidence to the Royal Commission, that evidence isn’t admissible against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, or of a state or territory. It is, however, admissible against a corporation. ”
Re:Microsoft says encryption laws make companies wary of sto...
by danieltillett on Thursday March 28, 2019 @06:33PM
(#19517317)
Interesting. There is this very relevant paragraph which makes the immunity rather moot.
However, evidential immunity under s 6DD doesn’t protect clients (who have been compelled to give evidence to the Royal Commission) from a regulator, such as ASIC, using their evidence as a springboard to gather secondary or derivative evidence, and using that derivative evidence against them.