Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal Professional Privilege ('LPP') is deeply rooted in the common law and has even been described as a right of a constitutional nature. In the recent decision of the Three Rivers case (2005), Lord Scott described LPP as an 'absolute right', subject only to the well established crime / fraud exception. In another decision, Taylor CJ opined that once LPP is established, it is not subject to any further balancing exercise. In contrast, the Canadian Supreme Court refused to adopt the same approach and decided to subject LPP to the same proportionality exercise as any fundamental constitutional right. This article explores the scope of LPP and argues that the Canadian approach should be preferred. While the Canadian approach seems to have been endorsed by the Court of Final Appeal in a recent disciplinary appeal, it criticises the Court of Final Appeal for having swung the pendulum too far by adopting a relatively loose standard to allow LPP to be abrogated. Finally, it explores how the Court should approach an application for a warrant to conduct covert surveillance under the newly adopted Interception of Communication and Surveillance Ordinance 2005 when such covert surveillance may interfere with LPP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".