The Accidental Consistency: Extracting a Coherent Principle from the Jurisprudence Surrounding Solicitor Client Privilege between the Police and the Crown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of a clear and consistent approach to solicitor client privilege between the police and the Crown has met with significant difficulty. The author client argues, however, that despite a lack of apparent clarity in both jurisprudence and legislation, a closer examination reveals that a type of "accidental consistency" has developed, whereby the police can maintain privileged communication with Crown counsel, provided they remain at arms length from actual prosecution in an advisory capacity only. The author then calls for this "accidental consistency " to become more clearly codified in future jurisprudence and argues that the optimum model to ensure the maintenance of privilege would be the use of independent, in-house counsel by the police.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".