who suspect their clients of money laundering (in effect any handling or involvement with any proceeds of any crime, or monies or assets representing the proceeds of crime, can be a money laundering offence in English law) to report them to the authorities without telling the clients they have done so, subject to a maximum punishment of 5 years in jail.
[4] Legal professional privilege is the principal reason why inspection of documents is refused, and is regarded as a fundamental principle of justice.
[5] Privilege extends beyond a mere evidential rule, and has been regarded as a fundamental principle of justice: The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence will never be revealed without his consent.
Legal profession privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case.
[7] Privilege is absolute, in the sense that once it is established, it may not be weighed against any other countervailing public interest factor,[8] but may only be overridden expressly by statute.
5, regarding the narrow construction of 'client' in the case of corporate clients, was not appealed and remains good, if controversial, law in England and Wales.
[19] The House therefore decided that legal advice privilege was to be given the scope commensurate with these wide policy considerations.
Where there was doubt about the relevant legal context, the court should ask (a) whether the advice related to the rights, liabilities, obligations or remedies of the client under either private or public law; and, if so, (b) whether the communication fell within the policy justification for the privilege.
In contrast to legal advice privilege (where the relevant category of communications is broadly-construed), for litigation privilege to apply, communications to and from a professional legal adviser or third party (or between them) must take place in the context of, and for the sole or dominant purpose of, actual or contemplated litigation.
[34] Confidential communications between a client and his legal adviser are not privileged if made for the purpose of committing a fraud or crime.
[36] Fraud in this context is a wide concept extending to iniquity, which embraces, for example, a plan to enter into transactions at an undervalue to prejudice the client's creditors.
[37] However, disclosure of such documents in such circumstances will only be ordered by a court if a particularly strong prima facie case of fraud is shown.
In contrast, and unlike their American counterparts, British accountants do not enjoy such privilege, and are under general obligations to make disclosures to HM Revenue and Customs.
[39] In July 2010, the legal professional privilege was the subject of a Court of Appeal case, in which Prudential plc claimed that it should not have to disclose tax advice received from accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers.
[40] The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) intervened in support of change, but the court's judgment in October rejected the extension of privilege to professions other than law.