http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
The call in the Baden-Clay trial Raises Constitutional Issues
by Sarah Elks, The Australian August 27, 2013 12:00AM.
THE murder trial of Gerard Baden-Clay may test whether confidential marriage counselling discussions can remain secret – even when the husband is later accused of killing his wife.
The Queensland Supreme Court yesterday heard the prosecution’s desire to subpoena the Baden-Clays’ marriage counsellor to give evidence raised potential “constitutional questions”.
If a judge believes a case triggers a constitutional question, they must seek submissions from the attorneys-general of each state and territory as well as the commonwealth.
Justice Martin adjourned the matter for one week to allow the parties to discuss the best way forward.
IMHO the purpose of the marriage counselling legislation needs to be reviewed. The concept of ‘Marriage’ has evolved since the 1950′s and 1960′s. RA also see many separating couples in de facto relationships. The original purpose of the legislation prevented one partner from using content from marriage counselling sessions agaiinst the other partner in Court proceedings for custody and property settlements etc.The Counsellor could not be called as a witness in Court against either partner. Both partners were assumed to be alive and in the process of separating/divorcing or reconciling. The purpose of the legislation expires where one partner is alleged to have murdered the other. Like priests, no counselling should be unaccountable in Law and counselling evidence in murder cases should be admissable in Court IMHO.
This demonstrates that the legislation needs to change. Members of the public need to be clear, that in the case of alleged murder of one partner, by the other, then counselling evidence will be admissable in Court.