A Practitioner’s Guide to Telepathy in the Law
The Law Society of New South Wales
1997
About the Guide
This is the second edition of the Practitioner’s Guide to Telepathy in the Law, an exciting initiative of the Law Society of NSW.
Following the success of the first edition, this second edition has been updated by a Senior Editorial Team throughout 1996-1997 (Alan Kwok, Fredrik Åkerblom, Jacqen Rascon, Mathais Nielsen, Conrad Wong, Connor Alexander, Sam Clarke and Jasper Walters) adding to the work of over 50 contributors for the first edition released in 1994-1995.
While this edition delivers a much needed update to the guide, we note that many areas of the law regarding telepathy are still in their infancy and that the development of legislation remains ongoing. This will require a further update to the guide, which remains an eternal work in progress.
This publication is designed as a guide for legal practitioners and to provide information only and not to provide legal advice. The Guide is primarily focused on the practical aspects of interaction between the legal system and telepathy which may be encountered in everyday practice in New South Wales.
It is not a textbook, nor a comprehensive guide on any particular topic, but should be used as a good starting point when dealing with matters directly or tangentially involving telepathy.
An electronic version of the Guide is also available through the Law Society of NSW website.
Patrick Deane
Chair of the Practitioner’s Guide to Telepathy in the Law Subcommittee
October 1997
A Practitioner’s Guide to Telepathy in the Law
2nd Edition
Published by:
Law Society of NSW
170 Phillip Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
DX 362 Sydney
T: 9926 0270
F: 9926 0282
E: lawsociety@lawsociety.com.au
Disclaimer: This publication provides general information of an introductory nature and is not intended and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other professional advice. While every care has been taken in the production of this publication, no legal responsibility or liability is accepted, warranted or implied by the authors or The Law Society of New South Wales and any liability is hereby expressly disclaimed.
© 1997 The Law Society of New South Wales, ACN 000 000 699, ABN 98 696 304 966.
Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced without the specific written permission of The Law Society of New South Wales.
ISBN: 7780409343571
Chapter 1
Understanding Telepathy
Definition
1.1 Schedule 1 of the Powers Act 1973 (Cth) (PA) defines telepathy as
Telepathy: from Greek (tele- meaning distant, pathos or -patheia meaning “feeling, perception, passions, affliction, experience”).
[the ability] to mentally perceive, communicate with or influence the mind of another person by extrasensory means without words, signals or physical contact.
1.2 A person who has manifested telepathic abilities is known as a telepath or colloquially a “psychic”. The words are interchangeable and are not terms of art, although “telepath” is the term predominantly used in legislation.
1.3 Data from the 1996 census indicates that approximately 1 in 110 adults are telepaths. The Federal Bureau of Statistics classifies Telepathy as Uncommon, the second most prevalent grade of superhuman abilities. It is estimated that there are approximately 122,000 telepaths in Australia.
Scope of Ability
1.4 Telepathic abilities are broken down into six overlapping functions or effects. These are:
Telepathic perception of the presence of another person
Telepathic perception of the thoughts of another person
Telepathic communication with the mind of another person
Telepathic influence or control over the actions of another person
Telepathic influence or control over the bodily functions of another person
Telepathic modification of the thoughts, memories or personality of another person
1.5 Section 344G of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act) provides definitions for each of these levels of telepathic impact, collectively referred to as “degrees”. Section 344F sets out that the unauthorised or unreasonable use of any degree of telepathy, save for the first, can create civil or criminal liability for the user.
1.6 Although the scope of telepathy contemplated by section 344G is vast, in reality few telepaths have the capacity to effectively utilise their abilities to such an extent. The majority of telepaths can exercise first, second and third degree functions without difficulty, and fourth degree functions with some difficulty and to a limited extent. Adult telepaths capable of competently exercising fifth or sixth degree influence are rare, and will usually not be encountered in a legal setting.
1.7 Expertise in telepathy does not necessarily equate with being competent at exercising higher degree functions, nor does an inability or ineptitude with higher degree functions indicate a lack of professionalism or incompetence. The majority of work done by professional telepaths involves first, second and third degree telepathy, and the depth of experience required to be proficient in these areas, third degree telepathy in particular, is extensive. As such, many telepaths forego developing their aptitude for fourth, fifth or sixth degree telepathy in favour of mastery of more practical skills
1.8 There are currently no identified subdivisions of telepaths. Antipaths, discussed below, are classified as a separate ability class to telepaths.
Dangers of Telepathy
1.9 Telepathy is a dangerous ability, both to the telepath and the person with whose mind they are interacting (telepath-recipient). The danger to a telepath-recipient is predominantly from secondary consequences of a violation of personal thoughts and privacy, or from brain damage caused by incompetent attempts at higher degree telepathic actions. Contrary to popular belief, it is very difficult for a telepath to compel a person to harm or endanger themselves.
1.10 The danger to telepaths from telepathy predominantly stems from the inability to properly filter or process outside thoughts. This can manifest in a number of ways, including:
Being unable to “turn off” or stop listening to the thoughts of those around them, leading to fatigue, disassociation, or mental illness.
Probing too “deep” into a telepath-recipient’s thoughts or memories, leading to an erosion of the telepath’s own identity, memory loss, disassociation or wasting.
Developing an “addiction” or obsession with a specific telepathic-recipient’s memories or thoughts, potentially even without the telepathic-recipient’s knowledge, leading to wasting, mental illness or delusions.
Vicarious trauma from experiencing traumatic memories of the telepath-recipient, leading to the development of symptoms as if the trauma had been experienced first-hand.
1.11 As a result of these stressors and dangers, mental illness is more prevalent in telepaths than in the general population.
Legislative Scope
1.12 The Commonwealth and the states each have power to legislate in respect of certain areas regarding telepathy and telepathic practices. In relation to the Commonwealth, s 51 of the Constitution provides:
The Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the
peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to
(xxiv) the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States;
(xxviA) superhuman abilities and the people imbued with any superhuman ability for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
1.13 New South Wales, along with the other five states, handed the Commonwealth their power to legislate with respect to the registration and regulation of superhuman abilities in a civil context, although each state still retains their own criminal statute and jurisdiction. The specific referral of power in relation to superhuman abilities includes the power to make laws requiring registration of abilities on a national database, ability‑requisite workplace legislation, superhuman border entry and exit requirements and specific ability issues (including restrictions on certain abilities in specified facilities).
1.14 Telepathy is one of the most heavily regulated abilities, second only to empathic mimicry. Restrictions on the use of telepathy are contained predominantly in Part 9 of the PA. It is important to ensure that you have read the whole of this Part thoroughly before representing or becoming involved in litigation involving a telepath.
1.15 Legislation and policies applying to telepaths also apply to an empathic mimic with telepathic abilities – s 102 PA.
Antipaths
1.16 “Antipathy”, or anti-telepathy, is defined in Schedule 1 of the PA as:
[the ability] to mentally perceive, inhibit or prevent telepathy or telepathic abilities from other parties, but wherein the wielder does not possess telepathic abilities of their own.
1.17 Although closely tied to telepathy, antipathy does not fall under the classification of telepathy as antipaths cannot manifest abilities constituting telepathic degrees. As such antipaths are not bound to abide by telepathy regulations.
Common myths and misconceptions about telepathy
1.18 As a widespread, potentially intrusive and easily understandable power, there are a number of misconceptions held about telepathy and telepaths both broadly and among specific cultures and communities. These misconceptions are exacerbated by the depiction of telepathy or similar abilities in pre-Aurora media and folklore, which can depict telepaths or creatures with telepathy as capable of a broad range of unrealistic behaviour. Practitioners need to be aware of these inaccurate beliefs, both for their own knowledge and education and so that they can recognise and correct them when they are expressed by clients, witnesses, legal officers or lay people.
A telepathic reading damages your mind or steals your soul
1.19 False. There is no evidence of any harm, effect or change in personality, either short-term or long-term, resulting from properly conducted telepathic contact.
There is no way to tell if a telepath has read your mind
1.20 False. Damage or modifications to a person’s mind caused by the improper, deliberate or malicious use of telepathy is clearly identifiable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of a telepath-recipient’s brain. Additionally, the thoughts of a person who has undergone telepathic alteration are typically highly perceptible to other telepaths, even in passing.
Repeated use of or contact with telepathy causes brain damage
1.21 False. As above there is no evidence that telepathic examination or communication, used properly, has any negative long-term effects.
TIP
A helpful analogy to assist clients or witnesses in understanding the long-term effects of telepathy is to compare it to normal speech. In the same way that permanent hearing damage is not caused by being repeatedly spoken to at a regular volume, permanent brain damage is not caused by repeated responsible use of telepathy.
A telepath who makes contact with your mind instantly knows all about you
1.22 False. As above there are degrees of telepathy and telepathic contact, not all of which involve thought perception. A telepath engaged in routine security or non-invasive monitoring will only get a general sense of a person’s current location, mood and thoughts.
Furthermore, even in direct second degree thought examination a telepath neither accesses nor retains the entirety of a telepath-recipient’s thoughts or memories. The total amount of information being put out or processed by a person’s mind at any given moment is often greater than a telepath can accurately interpret, given that it includes conscious, instinctual and inarticulable thought as well as subconscious processes, sensory perception and synaptic communication.
TIP
Use analogies and practical explanations to help your client or witness understand the limits of telepathy. Possible examples include:
A telepath reading your mind is like you reading a book – you cannot simply open it for a second and know everything inside it.
Your brain is an incredibly complex biological computer. When you use a computer, do you instantly know everything that’s on it? Like when you look for a file on your computer, the telepath will search in your brain in certain ways to try and find what they are looking for, but cannot perceive everything.
Remember, the telepath is still only human, and is seeing your thoughts through their own human mind. They are not going to be able to memorise your every thought and memory in the same way that you would not be able to memorise every word you read if you were going through a large file.
There is no recovering from telepathic misuse or assault
1.23 False. Like a physical injury, damage suffered by the improper use of telepathy can heal, either of its own accord or with the assistance of telepathic therapy, and will vary greatly in severity. There is a long-term risk of harm, however, in serious telepathic injuries remaining untreated, as this can potentially lead to secondary mental or trauma-related illness.
Many people find telepathic examinations uncomfortable and will experience short-term anxiety-related symptoms such as nausea, sweating, dizziness or dread either before direct telepathic contact or afterwards. These reactions on their own do not indicate mental damage or that the telepathic contact has occurred improperly.
It is impossible for a normal person to notice or prevent telepathic intrusion
1.24 False. It is entirely possible for a non-telepath or non-antipath to be aware of when a person makes telepathic contact, even if that contact is covert or unintentional. There are a variety of courses and instructional videos available online which can teach this skill, and completion of certified mental readiness training is a prerequisite for positions in many industries. Persons trained in recognising telepathic contact usually describe the sensation as “a tingling at the base of one’s skull.”
Similarly, preventing or slowing intrusion by telepaths is a skill now widely taught in businesses and schools. In this respect telepathy is one of the few superhuman abilities capable of being competently resisted by a person without a complimentary power set, given sufficient practice. All legal practitioners are encouraged to undertake telepathic resistance training and engage in practice and refresher courses as part of their Continuing Professional Development.
Simply being nearby allows a telepath to know what a person is thinking
1.25 Partially false. A telepath not seeking to make telepathic contact can nevertheless perceive powerful and uninhibited thoughts and emotions in nearby individuals in the same way that non‑telepathic people can overhear conversations or perceive facial expressions. These are generally only “surface level” perceptions and witnessing them does not constitute telepathic assault (Clay v Al Husseini & Ors [1982] NSWSC 141). As addressed above, the simple fact of telepathic perception or contact does not mean that a telepath will be privy to a person’s entire memories or thoughts, and it is likely that the majority of Australians pass telepaths every day without any negative repercussions.
Telepaths can control a mind from across the world
1.26 Partially false. The strength of a telepathic connection is inversely proportional to the physical distance between the telepath and telepath-recipient. Experienced telepaths can, with practice, use third degree telepathy to communicate across long distances with minds they are familiar with, but exerting telepathic abilities at other degrees beyond a sight or hearing radius is generally impossible. It is normally necessary for even professional telepaths to make eye contact with a telepath-recipient to perform higher degree telepathic tasks.
It is worth acknowledging that rumours have circulated regarding telepathic enhancement devices that can exponentially magnify a telepath’s powers. As at time of writing there have been no instances of such devices ever being confirmed to exist.
Telepaths can induce suicide or self-harm
1.27 Technically true. Practically however, the level of skill required to compel a telepath‑recipient to engage in self-harming or life-threatening behaviour is so great as to render such cases rare in the extreme. A 1993 review by the University of Canberra determined that since 1967 there had been only 3 recorded cases in Australia, the USA, the UK and Canada which implicated telepaths in compelling direct personal self-injury. As such, in the course of daily life and legal practice the risk of encountering a telepath capable of overriding base survival instincts should be treated as equatable to that of encountering a non-powered person capable of crushing steel with their bare hands.
Chapter 2
Telepathy and the Law
Potential roles of a telepath
2.1 Telepaths interact with the law from a variety of positions. These include:
As legal practitioners
As litigants
As law enforcement officers or Police contractors
As court staff or court-appointed experts
As privately contracted specialists or expert witnesses
As communication facilitators
As offenders
As victims of crime
2.2 Not every telepath who is in a role within the legal system is in that role due to their telepathy or to exercise their telepathy in that role. It is very important that the distinction between professionals employed to provide telepathic services and individuals involved in a legal matter who possess telepathy is understood by all parties and appropriately maintained (see, for example, SK v RM (1989) 49 NSWLR 120, where a civil matter was returned for rehearing on appeal after the trial Judge’s associate was found to have performed telepathic verification on a witness, which was outside her position duties and qualifications, albeit at her Judge’s order and with the witness’s consent). It is not the role of telepathic lawyers, police officers or court staff to provide telepathic services for which they are not expressly accredited or employed.
Communication facilitated through telepathy
2.3 As in other industries, Police, Courts and corrective services may employ telepaths to act as conduits for mental communication between individuals or groups. This will usually require the telepath facilitating the contact to be in physical proximity to at least one of the communicating parties.
2.4 Communication facilitated by telepathy as a professional service is regulated by the Telepathic Communications Act 1987 (Cth) (TCA). This act sets out industry codes and standards to which any telepath undertaking telepathic facilitation of communication as part of their employment or on an ongoing volunteer basis must comply. The TCA applies only to telepaths acting as conduits for communication between two or more parties (telepath conduits) and does not apply to telepaths using telepathy to communicate directly with another person.
2.5 During a conversation facilitated by a telepath conduit, the level of information retained or “overheard” by the telepath conduit will vary. In a short conversation between two individuals, a professional telepath conduit will generally be capable of recalling the majority of what has been communicated. Conversely, the greater the number of people communicating on one telepathic “call” and the longer the duration of that call, the less information the telepath conduit will usually retain. Although it is incorrect to assume that a telepath conduit will be privy to the full content of their communicatees’ minds (see 1.22), it is nevertheless incumbent upon practitioners to assume that anything which was communicated through a telepath conduit may have been overheard and retained by that telepath conduit.
2.6 The TCA places a duty of confidentiality on telepath conduits in regard to information they retain or overhear while acting in a professional capacity. Significantly however, the TCA also contains exceptions to this duty, including:
if there is an immediate and specified risk of harm to an identifiable person or persons that can be averted only by disclosing information; or
where information may be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of an offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender of a serious indictable offence.
2.7 A telepath conduit’s duty of confidentiality also does not extend solicitor-client privilege to the telepath conduit, and communications passing through telepath conduits should not be assumed to be privileged. The use of a telepath conduit to pass information can be seen to constitute a waiver of privilege over that information in certain circumstances – Town v Hildebrand (1985) 83 CLR 21.
2.8 Many correctional centres allocate telepathic visitation slots to incarcerated persons, wherein a telepathic member of staff establishes and acts as a telepath conduit between a detainee and members of the public. This can be done remotely (see above at 1.26) and is a viable alternative when either the incarcerated person or their communicatee are unable to undertake physical visitation. However for the reasons stated above, it is preferrable that practitioners not use telepath conduits to discuss legal matters or potentially privileged or incriminating information with incarcerated clients.
2.9 It is not appropriate for practitioners to use or encourage the use of telepathic communication to circumvent restrictions around communicating with incarcerated persons. Practitioners who become aware of telepathy being used in this manner should report any breach to the relevant authorities or correctional facility in question. Failing to do so may constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct, and actively commissioning or encouraging unauthorised telepathic communication may constitute professional misconduct: Bok v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (1989) 234 FLR 479.
TIP
Correctional facilities without exception will have telepathic practitioners on staff. These staff members can and will detect unauthorised telepathic contact involving incarcerated persons.
Telepathic evidence gathering by law enforcement
2.10 Since 1 August 1995, the law relating to evidence that police can gather whilst a solicitor is visiting their client at the police station has changed. The introduction of s 89B in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) means that solicitors should be very cautious in deciding whether to visit their client at a police station.
2.11 Practitioners looking to visit their clients at a police station should read s 89B carefully and consider how it applies to the circumstances of their case.
2.12 Before the introduction of s 89B, police officers were not allowed to use telepathy to take evidence from a person of interest without an order of the court. Section 89B has changed this. Now, in circumstances where a police officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a defendant has committed a serious indictable offence (an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 5 or more years’ imprisonment), the police may use telepathy to take evidence from a person of interest in the presence of a legal practitioner who is, at that time, acting for the defendant.
2.13 In the absence of a court order to the contrary a person of interest is still required to provide consent to evidence being taken telepathically. However, under s 89B a refusal by a person of interest to provide telepathic evidence may harm that person’s defence by creating an inference that the taking of telepathic evidence would not have assisted their case.
2.14 By attending a police station, a legal practitioner may enable the application of s 89B where it previously could not apply, because telepathic evidence in the absence of a court order can only be given when an Australian legal practitioner is present. If there is a risk that telepathic evidence may be taken or your client may have committed a serious indictable offence, do not visit your client at the police station. If you are reading this in the waiting area of the police station leave now.
2.15 Whilst the provision requires that a legal practitioner be given a reasonable opportunity to consult with their client in the absence of the police officer about the effect of s 89B and the terms and use of telepathic evidence gathered, junior practitioners should never undertake such a course without first discussing it with a senior practitioner.
TIP
Section 89B will not apply to the questioning of a child.
Telepathic involvement in court proceedings
2.16 There are numerous functions a professional telepath may be called to undertake as part of the legal process. These include, but are not limited to:
Verifying the identity of a participant to litigation
Evaluating parties to litigation for hostile intent and verifying safety concerns
Verifying the accuracy and truthfulness of information provided by a witness
Telepathically or verbally articulating the evidence or submissions of mute or linguistically diverse witnesses or litigants
Projecting thoughts from a witness or litigant into the minds of legal practitioners, other parties and judicial officers to provide visual and sensory aid
Facilitating the immersion of legal practitioners, other parties and judicial officers in the memories of a witness as part of examination
Performing psychiatric evaluations of the mental state or capacity of a litigation participant
Assessing contrition, chances of re-offending and the prospect of rehabilitation of defendants at sentencing
Extracting information from a witness or litigant, either with consent or without
2.17 A telepath employed by the court or contracted to perform services in relation to litigation may perform one or several of these roles.
Verification of party identities
2.18 Generally speaking, the identity of parties in proceedings will not be in issue and can be sufficiently satisfied by reference to standard identity documents (Woolmont v Woolmont & Ors (1990) 175 CLR 2). As such, courts will normally not require telepathic verification of the identities of parties prior to commencing proceedings. All courts have the power to compel the telepathic verification of the identity of a participant to litigation should concerns about a party’s identity or impersonation arise.
2.19 The sole exception to the general rule that telepathic identity verification is not required is the High Court of Australia, which requires all parties and practitioners appearing before it to be telepathically verified prior to proceedings commencing.
Evaluation of safety concerns
2.20 It is common practice for courts at all levels to maintain at least one telepathic member of security to monitor for safety concerns and hostile intent. Given the risk posed by individuals and their powers, there is no proposal that this be changed.
2.21 A telepath employed to provide security services at a court can give evidence in relation to what they perceived in relation to events occurring at that court in the same manner as any lay person or security professional, and their evidence can include perceptions made through the proper use of their telepathy. However, court security cannot provide or be compelled to provide evidence in relation to the central matter in dispute or provide commentary on perceived internal reactions or feelings of guilt – DPP v Miranda [1990] NSWSC 859.
2.22 Parties who have concerns for their safety during in-person court proceedings are not required to have those concerns telepathically verified if accommodations for their safety can reasonably be made. Conversely, security staff are not required to telepathically verify that a person or persons the subject of an alleged safety concern is in fact carrying hostile intent.
Assessing truth and accuracy
2.23 From 1968 to 1975, many courts employed telepaths in what could be considered a monitoring or “lie detector” role. In this position, the telepathic court employee would monitor the giving of all oral evidence and submissions and indicate to the presiding judicial officer the truthfulness, or otherwise, of what was being said.
2.24 This practice was subsequently prohibited in the case of Re: I [1975] HCA 14. In addition to being deemed a violation of the legal right to silence, the majority of the High Court in this case found that engaging a telepath in this “lie detector” role inappropriately placed the evaluation of witness credibility and the weight of party submissions into the hands of a non-judicial officer, and unfairly failed to account for the unreliable, unpredictable and often illogical nature of human memory and thought. This case has been upheld in subsequent decisions (see, for example, Bourke & Collick [1983] HCA 30; In the matter of Rowley (1988) 32 CLR 10).
2.25 The uniform evidence law allows courts in all jurisdictions to telepathically verify the veracity of a particular witness’s evidence if it is deemed necessary for the administration of justice. However this option must only be called upon as a last resort, and must be balanced against an individual’s right to privacy and silence. Evidence obtained in this manner, although weighted highly, is not necessarily insurmountable or determinative when evaluating credibility or determining facts in issue (Park-Park Dogpen Enterprises v Omnivore Pty Ltd (1979) 151 CLR 347).
2.26 Parties may also elect to have their evidence telepathically verified. It is at the discretion of the court whether to allow this in the case in question, and consideration will be given to case management principles as well as whether it is of central importance that the evidence in question be confirmed (Eternity Insurance v University of Sydney (1981) 29 CLR 200). It is vital that an election for telepathic verification is voluntary, and not made under undue pressure or duress (Buckingham v R (1990) 195 A Crim R 2).
Telepathic articulation
2.27 In recent years, several private translating and interpreting companies have begun offering telepathic interpreters for linguistically diverse clients or individuals with disabilities relating to hearing or verbal articulation. This service is not currently offered by the national Translating and Interpreting Service which provides interpreters for linguistically diverse participants in most Australian tribunals and courts.
2.28 It is recommended that practitioners considering using telepathic interpreters exercise a degree of caution, as at time of writing there is no accreditation process by which a base standard of competence can be assured. Due to the imprecise and sometimes inarticulable nature of thought there is also an inherent risk that what is conveyed by a telepathic interpreter will not be strictly accurate, will be miscommunicated or coloured by personal interpretation, language barriers or bias, or may not be what the telepath-recipient intended to communicate. As such it is preferrable to provide litigation participants in need of interpretation with a spoken or signed language interpreter, if available, or to have a telepathic interpreter fluent in the telepath-recipient’s native tongue (Wang & Dong [1990] FamCAFC 94).
2.29 A party to litigation does not have the right to give evidence through a telepathic interpreter simply because they wish to better or more convincingly articulate their case – Humphrey & Slight [1995] FamCA 641.
Telepathic evidence projection and memory immersion
2.30 In serious cases featuring contested facts in issue and disputed material evidence, some courts may elect to receive evidence in the form of telepathic projection or by being permitted direct access to a witness’s memories. The telepath in this context functions as a conduit between the minds of the judicial officer and participating litigants, and the witness whose evidence is under examination.
2.31 Conducting examinations using telepathic projection or immersion requires a telepath with specialised training and a skillset which allows them to create and maintain connections in this manner. It is not, under any circumstances, to be attempted by an amateur telepath or a telepath lacking specialist accreditation, and to do so will likely result in a mistrial (MZPQB v Department of Foreign Affairs [1986] FCA 200).
2.32 There is no legal difference between conducting examinations via telepathic projection or via telepathic memory immersion, as both methods are different formulations of the same process. Collectively, taking evidence in this manner is referred to as a “telepathic view”, and is subject to many of the same rules regarding regular views as in Part 2.3 of the uniform Evidence Acts.
2.33 The advantages of a telepathic view are readily apparent, in that they allow judicial officers to see a first-hand recollection of contested events, to observe the subjective mental state of a witness at the time of the incident, and to get a clearer practical understanding of locations, circumstances and actions by use of a visual aid. However even for witnesses whose evidence is reliable, memories can shift and evolve over time, and the court must be careful to consider evidence taken on telepathic view not as objective recorded history, but a single witness’s subjective account of events (Klein v Director of Public Prosecutions (1993) 132 CLR 60).
2.34 Generally speaking, for the protection of parties, only judicial officers and legal practitioners are permitted to participate in a telepathic view. In cases involving accusations of criminal activity or domestic violence where one party is self-represented, the court can request the Legal Aid commission to provide legal representation to the self-represented party so as to prevent telepathic contact between that self-represented party and the alleged victim. Provisions dealing with these protections in family and criminal law proceedings can be found in s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and s 84A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) respectively.
2.35 The election of whether to conduct a telepathic view resides firstly with the witness being examined and secondly with the court (see s 54A of the uniform Evidence Acts). Following the decision of the High Court in Re: Kennedy [1980] HCA 18, it is currently the law in Australia that a decision not to give or call for evidence by way of a telepathic view will not give rise to an adverse inference that a telepathic view would not have assisted the case of the electing party. This can be considered an exception to the rule of Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8. However, practitioners should also be aware of the dissenting judgment of the minority in Re: Kennedy, and that this area is not settled law (see, for example, Parker v Parker (1983) 11 NSWLR 190; Reid v Magnetic Levitation Services Pty Ltd (1987) 9 SASR 337).
Telepathic evaluations of capacity, contrition and rehabilitation prospects
2.36 A court that has concerns regarding the capacity of a person to participate in litigation may order an evaluation of that capacity by a qualified telepath – s 13A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and s 13A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). This is a rudimentary evaluation which can be used to inform the court only if the person has capacity to participate in the current litigation completely or in part. A legal representative may apply to the court for an s 13A evaluation.
2.37 A practitioner who is concerned that their client lacks mental capacity to give instructions or make their own legal decisions should proceed with caution. For further information regarding issues of capacity, refer to the Law Society of New South Wales’s publication “When A Client’s Mental Capacity Is In Doubt: A Practical Guide For Solicitors”.
2.38 A court may now also order a telepathic evaluation of a defendant’s contrition and prospects of re-offending in criminal sentencing proceedings under s 21B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1995 (NSW). A refusal to submit to this evaluation permits a sentencing court to draw a negative inference against the refusing defendant’s contrition and rehabilitation prospects. This is a specific exception to the protection from negative inferences in Re: Kennedy.
2.39 A court-ordered telepathic evaluation may be undertaken by a telepath employed by the court in an evaluative role, a private practitioner nominated by the court, or a private practitioner nominated by person to be assessed (Kincaid v R [1996] NSWSC 120). As a matter of practice, a client who is reluctant to be subjected to telepathic evaluation may be more willing to submit if they can select the telepath performing it.
2.40 Telepaths undertaking professional telepathic evaluations have set criteria by which they will perform their assessments. These assessments are classified as expert reports and will be treated by the court as such. There are specific rules in each jurisdiction as to expert reports.
Telepathic compulsion or extraction of evidence
2.41 In extremely rare and serious circumstances, a court may order a witness telepathically compelled to give evidence or information telepathically extracted from a witness’s mind. This is distinct from the telepathic evaluation of a witness’s evidence, which is where a telepath provides an assessment of whether evidence which a witness has voluntarily provided is truthful and accurate.
2.42 In situation where a witness refuses to provide any evidence, or refuses to provide evidence on a salient point, the court may permit the witness to be treated as hostile and either telepathically compelled to answer a question or for information to be telepathically extracted from their mind. This is only ever considered as a last resort, and in situations where other evidence indicates a real and serious risk of harm to another person if the information is not brought forth, such as in cases of missing children. The key case dealing with telepathic compulsion is Capri & West (1985) 170 CLR 56, and practitioners seeking orders of this nature should ensure they are familiar with the criteria set out by Mason J (as he then was) at [34]. There is no legal difference between an answer that is telepathically extracted or one that is telepathically compelled (Capri & West at [32] per Mason J).
2.43 The circumstances in which a court will order telepathic compulsion of evidence are few and far between. It is not sufficient for there to be doubts regarding the veracity of a witness’s evidence, or suspicion that a witness may have committed similar crimes in the past (Singer v Baird (1993) 182 CLR 197). It is a breach of the Australian Solicitor’s Conduct Rules to commission the compulsion of evidence though the unauthorised use of telepathy, and solicitors found to have engaged in such risk being struck from the roll.
Evidence acquired through telepathy
2.44 Due to the highly invasive nature of its method of acquisition, there are strict rules around the use of evidence acquired through the use of telepathy (telepathic evidence).
2.45 Section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) states that:
(1) Evidence that was obtained:
(a) improperly or in contravention of an Australian law; or
(b) in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of an Australian law;
is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained.
2.46 An identical provision exists in section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Similar provisions likewise can be found in evidence acts across all states and territories as part of the uniform evidence law.
2.47 It is well-established that the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained through the improper or illegal use of telepathy is considerable (see R v Jackson [1967] HCA 20). Evidence of overheard thoughts is treated as hearsay under Part 3.2 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). So great is the public interest in personal thoughts remaining private that unauthorised telepathic evidence will not be accepted by a court except in the most strenuous circumstances (Juraya & Black [1986] HCA 4). Whether the telepath in question intended to overhear the thoughts now sought to be recounted as evidence is irrelevant in considering whether that evidence is admissible, although it may go to the witness’s credibility (Re: Arcadia Industries, ex parte Pope [1987] HCA 23).
2.48 This bar against the admissibility of telepathic evidence extends only so far as the telepathic evidence was gathered in a way that was illegal or improper. Telepathic evidence gathered with informed consent, as part of court-ordered evaluation or reporting, or in the performance of an authorised duty such as telepathic psychotherapy, is admissible to the same extent as evidence of any observation made by non-telepathic senses.
2.49 Properly submitted telepathic evidence can be influential but is not necessarily determinative – Park-Park Dogpen Enterprises v Omnivore. It is increasingly accepted by the courts that telepathic evidence is not necessarily free from influence, bias, misinterpretation, subjectivity and error (Vlaada v Shepperton Finances [1990] FCFCA 52). In rare cases it is even possible for individuals to commission false telepathic evidence by deliberately supplying assessing telepaths with manufactured or imagined memories or thoughts (Two Slurp Chinese Noodle House Ltd v Liu [1994] FCFCA 151).
Chapter 3
Telepathic clients
3.1 Generally speaking, legal practitioners engaged in practice will encounter clients who are telepathic in four broad roles:
Clients whose matters are not related to their telepathy
Clients employed to provide professional telepathic services with matters in relation to those services
Clients who are accused of telepathic offences or misconduct
Clients who are the victim of a crime targeted at them due to their status as a telepath
Clients with matters not related to their telepathy
3.2 Telepathy, like all superhuman abilities, is random in who it manifests. As such, practitioners can expect to encounter telepaths with legal problems the same as would be encountered by persons of other abilities in any area of law.
3.3 Practitioners should treat telepathic clients the same as any other clients and provide assistance in accordance with the Solicitor’s Conduct Rules. Practitioners should not avoid taking on telepaths as clients because of misconceptions regarding telepathy (addressed at 1.18 above) or due to unfounded concerns about mental privacy.
General advice for working with telepathic clients
3.4 It is important for practitioners as a general principle to be trained and knowledgeable in how to recognise telepathic intrusion and resist telepathic attack. It is also important that practitioners be practised in keeping their thoughts regulated when attending telepathic clients. This is to ensure that a practitioner’s inner thoughts or feelings or their personal (not professional) opinion on a matter are not unintentionally conveyed, and that the practitioner does not unintentionally disclose confidential information.
3.5 Telepathic clients will often be anxious, and either intentionally or unintentionally utilising their powers to gauge your honest reaction to what they are saying. At the start of any solicitor-client relationship with a telepathic person you should set clear boundaries regarding the use of telepathy in your professional interactions and be upfront that the client is to listen to what is said, not what is thought. If a client refuses to accept or abide by these boundaries, it may be necessary to sever the professional relationship.
3.6 Legal practitioners are expected to be trained in mental self-protection but are not expected to be experts. It is likely that over the course of an ongoing solicitor-client relationship a telepathic client will on occasion perceive thoughts or emotions that they were not intended to hear. This is normal and although sometimes upsetting will be something experienced by telepaths in most aspects of their lives. It is the responsibility of the telepathic client to use their power responsibly, to react rationally and to deal with overheard information in accordance with the law.
3.7 Telepathic clients will often want to support their case with evidence that they have heard or acquired through telepathic means. Many will not understand the limitations on evidence obtained through the use of telepathy (addressed here above at 2.37) and it is part of your role as a solicitor to provide correct legal advice regarding restrictions on evidence and admissibility.
3.8 If possible, interactions with telepathic clients should be by email, videocall or phone as much as possible. Maintaining physical distance between yourself and the telepathic client will assist you in maintaining professionalism and reduces the potential for the client to become confused by contradicting verbal and mental instructions.
Clients employed to provide professional telepathic services
3.9 Telepaths are a staple, and oftentimes indispensable, part of many industries and services. In addition to a notable presence in law enforcement, the judicial process, psychology, security and psychotherapy, it is also common practice for telepaths to be retained in a professional capacity to oversee large corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions. This is in part from a desire to ensure good faith negotiation between parties, and in part to protect confidential information and thoughts detrimental to a party’s bargaining position from other telepaths.
3.10 Telepaths employed in a professional capacity to utilise their telepathic abilities (professional telepaths) can be employed to conduct telepathic duties on a discrete or ongoing basis. It is important when dealing with matters involving professional telepaths that practitioners establish as a starting point whether a telepath is an employee or an independent contractor, as this distinction will cause different rights and obligations to accrue.
3.11 Research by the National Telepathic Association, the professional association for telepaths, indicates that 85% of complaints received against professional telepaths fall into one of three categories:
Complaints that a telepath-recipient or event participant was unaware or did not consent to their thoughts being monitored or a telepath being present
Complaints that a professional telepath performed telepathic acts beyond the scope of their duties
Complaints that a professional telepath retained or utilised private or confidential information beyond the scope of their duties
3.12 The conduct of a professional telepath in the execution of their duties will be compared to the standards of comparable professionals in the same field. The Powered Professional Regulation Agency (PPRA) provides guidelines, regulations and accreditation for telepathic professionals, as well as receives and processes complaints. Codes of Conduct for professional telepaths in different roles are available on the PPRA website.
3.13 A professional telepath is expected to use their telepathy in the course of executing their duties. Failure to do so can constitute a breach of their professional responsibilities and amount to a wrongful omission – Re Barry; Ex parte Ryan (1988) 45 CLR 130.
3.14 Telepathic psychology and psychotherapy is a popular yet still developing field, and one which can be enormously beneficial to persons suffering from trauma or mental illness. However, the intimate and internal nature of telepathic treatments carries with it an increased responsibility for the treating practitioner alongside an increased risk of harm. A psychologist or other medical practitioner who uses telepathy in the course of their treatment of a patient (a telehealth practitioner) is dually subject to regulation by the PPRA and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and must comply with the accreditation requirements of both. A telehealth practitioner can be subject to medical negligence claims regarding the use of their telepathy outside of any telepath regulation legislation.
Clients accused of telepathic offences or misconduct
3.15 Telepaths accused of telepathic offences or misconduct can face both criminal charges and civil litigation.
3.16 A criminal prosecution is brought by police or the relevant Department of Public Prosecutions if they believe there is sufficient evidence to justify the finding of an offence. The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt – s 141 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and counterparts.
3.17 Section 344K of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) sets out specific offences relating to the specific use of telepathy at varying degrees. Broadly speaking, the misuse of telepathy at higher degrees results in more serious penalties. Telepaths may also be charged with abuse of powers under s 344B.
3.18 The use of a superhuman ability in the commission of an offence is an aggravating factor in the consideration of any sentence unless it can be demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the use of that ability did not impact the outcome or severity of the offence in question (Riverside v R (1981) 112 A Crim R 211 [92]). In sentencing for telepathic offences, a court will consider both general and specific deterrence as well as the public policy interest that exists in personal thought remaining private.
3.19 That a telepathic act was undertaken in the normal course of a professional telepath’s duties is a defence to criminal charges relating to the misuse of telepathy found in s 344K of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). However, this use must have been reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
3.20 There are a number of other defences at law including duress, necessity, claim of right and self‑defence. These apply to telepaths as with any defendant. Strictly speaking, not all of these are “defences” but are matters which, once raised, the prosecution generally must negative beyond reasonable doubt.
3.21 For more detailed information regarding criminal proceedings, refer to the Law Society of New South Wales’s publication “A Practitioner’s Guide to Criminal Law”.
3.22 The High Court has found that unwarranted telepathic violation of a person’s mental privacy is a common law tort creating a cause of action (XY v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1978) 33 CLR 200). As such, unwilling telepath-recipients may elect to bring civil suits independent of any criminal proceedings.
3.23 The elements of the tort of invasion of privacy are set out in XY v ABC at [120]. Broadly, they are as follows:
Telepaths have a duty to take reasonable care not to utilise their powers in an invasive manner towards others without authorisation, but do not have a duty to avoid baseline telepathic perceptions.
The wrongful use of telepathy.
That the wrongful use of telepathy caused actual damage or infringement of legal rights.
A remedy capable of being granted.
3.24 A failure by a telepath to use telepathy does not constitute a cause in action unless that failure or omission was as part of their role as a professional telepath (Re Barry; Ex parte Ryan at 159). A telepath has no general duty to monitor the mental state of those around them (Re Barry; Ex parte Ryan at 170).
3.25 Invasion of privacy is a tort which is actionable per se, meaning no proof of damage is required. As above, the court has a public policy interest in ensuring personal thought remains private and may order nominal or punitive damages even when no actual damage has occurred.
3.26 Unfortunately, the prevalence of telepathy and its personally invasive nature means that telepaths are often the subject of baseless, paranoid or vexatious civil claims. In cases where harassment or threats of litigation against a telepathic client are ongoing practitioners should consider sending a formal cease and desist letter to the aggrieved party, or whether the telepathic client has grounds to seek an Apprehended Violence Order from police. Practitioners who are approached regarding civil suits against telepaths should likewise require clear evidence of wrongdoing before initiating proceedings and should remain mindful of their duties as solicitors and to the court not to bring proceedings which are vexatious or constitute an abuse of process.
Chapter 4
Acting against telepaths
4.1 This final chapter deals in brief with the additional considerations legal practitioners should have when engaging with, rather than representing, telepaths as part of a legal process, be that in litigation, mediation, negotiation or any lead-up thereto. This can include:
Opposing legal practitioners or administrative staff who possess telepathy
Professional telepaths employed by the court, law enforcement or other parties, or who are retained by such to provide expert services or as expert witnesses
Telepathic individuals who are opposing parties
Telepathic individuals otherwise aligned with opposing parties
Legal practitioners
4.2 Legal practitioners who possess telepathic abilities (telepathic practitioners) are bound to follow both the relevant Solicitor’s Conduct Rules and telepathic regulation legislation. It is strongly advised that telepathic practitioners not be permitted to, and that consent not be provided for them to, utilise their telepathy in legal proceedings for any purpose other than perhaps as a means of communication with their client.
4.3 A telepathic practitioner should not perform any telepathic tasks which would otherwise be performed by an independent accredited third-party telepath. A telepathic practitioner who offers to perform telepathic tasks for which they are not expressly qualified or in a role which they are not in that case acting may be found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct. A telepathic practitioner who uses their telepathy to further their client’s case may be found to have engaged in professional misconduct.
4.4 Suspected misconduct by a telepathic practitioner should be reported to the Law Society and complaints made to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Suspicions of serious abuse of powers or breaches of criminal law should be reported to police.
Professional telepaths
4.5 Similar to telepath practitioners, professional telepaths are bound by both telepathic regulation legislation and their relevant industry Code of Conduct. It is important to review the Code of Conduct applicable to the telepathic role in question before engaging with a professional telepath so that both you and your client have a clear understanding of the scope of their position and function.
4.6 Complaints regarding professional telepaths or reports of suspected breaches of their applicable Code of Conduct should be reported to the Powered Professional Regulation Agency. The two exceptions to this are complaints against professional telepaths employed by NSW Police, which should be made to the NSW Police Commissioner or the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, and complaints against telehealth practitioners, which can also be made to AHPRA.
Telepathic opposing parties and telepaths aligned with opposing parties
4.7 The presence of a dispute, a negotiation or legal proceedings does not remove the need for a telepath party or adjacent to those proceedings to use their powers responsibly and to adhere to the standard of behaviour required by telepaths under the law. Despite this, there remains a small practical risk to practitioners and clients that a telepath who is or is aligned with an opposing party may seek to covertly utilise their abilities to influence another participant to litigation or to otherwise gain an unfair advantage in proceedings.
4.8 Practitioners are therefore recommended to take the following measures when dealing with telepathic opposing parties, in order of preference:
Communicate remotely, via email, videolink or phone to prevent any risk of telepathic interference.
Employ a professional telepath to oversee proceedings and/or safeguard their client’s interests.
Ensure the practitioner and their client are trained and competent in recognising telepathic contact and undertaking mental defence.
4.9 Practitioners should also consider whether it is appropriate that themselves or their clients take PsyBlock® or another generic telepathy-inhibiting medication for situations where contact with an opposing telepath cannot be avoided. This will most likely be a commercial decision, given the significant costs associated with these medications. Serious consideration should be given to this option for hearings, mediations or arbitrations taking place over one or several days, wherein the cost of the medication may be far outweighed by the potential detriment to the client’s position.
4.10 Suspicions of abuse or misuse of telepathy should be reported to the presiding judicial officer, mediator or arbitrator as soon as they are identified. Breaches of criminal law should be reported to police.
Identifying telepathic attack
4.11 It is not inconceivable that during the course of a strongly contested matter or adversarial litigation that an illegal telepathic attack on a legal practitioner or client could occur. Legal practitioners should, as a part of their general knowledge, be familiar with the signs of telepathic attack, damage or control, which include:
Body tremors, particularly of the hands, mouth and eyes
Sudden and inexplicable immobility
Inability to react to stimuli or delayed reactions
Unexplained slurred speech
Tendon spasms and muscular tension
Dilated pupils
The appearance of twitches or nervous ticks
Rasping or uncharacteristic speaking patterns
Capillary bleeding, in particular around the ears, eyes, nose and gums.
4.12 A practitioner who observes the sudden onset of any of the above should immediately undertake the following steps as a matter of urgency:
Check their surroundings for danger
Call for help from those nearby
TIP
Calls for help should be clear, loud and personally addressed, and should be repeated until a response occurs. Example:
“Help! Help! My client is under telepathic attack! You, over there-” [physically indicate the person being referred to and identify them by a physical characteristic, such as their hair or what they are wearing] “-get security! You, with the [physical characteristic], call the police!”
Notify any security present
Call 000 and notify the police
Attempt to identify the source of the telepathic attack
TIP
A telepath almost always needs to make eye contact to utilise higher degree telepathic functions. When scanning surroundings for the source of telepathic attack, look for individuals making sustained, unbroken eye contact with the victim.
(If identified) Attempt to physically interfere with the telepathic attacker to break their concentration.
TIP
A person is not criminally responsible for their actions if they believe that they were carried out to defend themselves or another person – s 418 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
(If unable to identify attacker) Make physical contact with the suspected victim of telepathic attack. Shake the victim lightly on their shoulder or arm. Stand in front of the victim and make direct eye-to-eye contact.
TIP
Only shake a suspected victim of telepathic attack if they are still standing. Do NOT make physical contact with a suspected victim of telepathic attack if they have fallen onto the ground, as they may be having a seizure.
Move the suspected victim and attempt to block telepathic line of sight.
Remain with the suspected victim until police arrive so long as it is safe to do so.
Resisting telepathic attack
4.13 It is part of a practitioner’s professional responsibilities to be trained in recognising telepathic contact and resisting telepathic attack. The Law Society of NSW’s website contains links to courses on telepathic resistance offered as part of practitioners’ Continuing Professional Development.
Preventing telepathic attack
4.14 The following practical tips for defending against telepathic intrusion are general advice only and should not be considered a substitute for professional accredited training.
4.15 It is always preferrable to prevent or avoid unwanted telepathic intrusions, thought manipulation, memory access or physical compulsion (together telepathic attack) rather than attempting to resist it. Preparation is key. A prudent practitioner attending a potentially contentious hearing, mediation, negotiation or meeting (for convenience hereto referred to as a legal event) will be aware of the identities of those who are scheduled to be present and their respective abilities ahead of time, and will make arrangements or security inquiries accordingly.
4.16 If a person is present at a legal event who is not expected or announced to be there, a prudent legal practitioner identifies this person and inquires into their identity. This is, for obvious reasons, not possible in all circumstances. Nevertheless, a prudent legal practitioner takes all steps possible to be aware in advance if there is a telepath, or another individual with notably dangerous powers, present at a legal event.
4.17 A prudent legal practitioner who has identified that a telepath will be present at a legal event does not attend this legal event alone. Legal practitioners, regardless of experience or seniority, should seek to be accompanied by a support person or another member of staff to any legal event at which a telepath may be attending.
TIP
A legal practitioner accompanying and being accompanied by their client, presuming their client is of standard competence, will usually satisfy this requirement.
4.18 A prudent legal practitioner will visually identity any known telepaths on arrival and maintain awareness of their location throughout the legal event. A prudent legal practitioner will also ensure that they and all members of their party remain accompanied or in a secure or publicly observable place at all times.
4.19 All of the above are preventative measures which can reduce the likelihood of a telepathic attack taking place. A practitioner may also seek to rely on their own or the court’s telepathic security.
Tips for mental defence
4.20 If you sense that a telepathic attack is or is about to occur against you, remain calm. Focus immediately on clearing your thoughts and controlling your breathing. Do not be concerned with alerting other members of your party, the court or your client – they will soon notice your unusual behaviour and alert the proper authorities. Also do not be concerned with maintaining an appearance of professionalism or composure in front of a client, or with maintaining formality before the court – any lapse in decorum will be forgiven as soon as the fact of the telepathic attack is discovered. Your sole focus in that moment should be your mental protection.
4.21 Ignore intrusive thoughts, sensory pressure or outside stimuli. Repeat a single mantra of which you are intimately familiar, ideally a simple song or piece of poetry, to the exclusion of all else. Do not be concerned if you need to repeat this out loud. Resist all compulsion to movement.
4.22 If you feel external pressure on your mind, visualise the words of your mantra pushing back. Visualise your mantra both audibly and visually but continue to cycle through it with a regular, rhythmic frequency. Do not stop until you are advised by security, your support person or police that it is safe to do so.
4.23 The above, while not guaranteed to indefinitely prevent telepathic attack, will in the majority of circumstances slow down any telepathic intrusion long enough to allow a support person or another lawyer present to alert security or interrupt the telepathic attacker. Even if a telepathic attack stops upon encountering your resistance, you should immediately cease proceedings and notify all present at the legal event that you have just been subject to a telepathic attack. You should then notify the police.
4.24 Following an attempted or successful telepathic attack, telepaths employed by police, security or the court may wish to perform a telepathic inspection on you to assess the extent of the telepathic intrusion and whether any mental damage has been done. Although it is oftentimes difficult to allow this, you should permit them to do so even if it causes personal discomfort. The early identification of mental damage can allow for easier telepathic repair and, conversely, having the possibility of mental damage ruled out can relieve anxiety and prevent the formation of longer-lasting trauma.
4.25 Suffering an attempted telepathic attack is a justifiable reason to seek that a matter be adjourned and, where appropriate, can support an order for costs.
© 1997 The Law Society of New South Wales
