Attorney Client Privilege in the Bowman v. Fels Case

Introduction

The concept of attorney – client privilege has been a long withstanding foundation of the English legal system. It is arguably among the basic principles of justice. This is why when this doctrine is under threat we must pay close attention. Such was the case in Bowman v Fels, where the entire principal was possibly under major reform. The discussion of this paper will critically analyze the decision reached in this case, and the reasoning behind said decision. I will begin my analysis by first establishing the facts and the issues that arose during the hearing. And then proceed to analyse the issues in order to better determine the wider impact the case had. Following the decision of the Court Of Appeal, many critics raised questions regarding the issues not dealt with by the decision, these critiques and further questions raised about the scope and direction which English Law is heading will also be analysed. Before we begin delving into the analysis we must first establish the facts of the case as presented.

Facts

The claimant, Jennifer Bowman, lived with the defendant, William Fels, for 10 years. The house in which they resided was registered solely in Mr. Fels name. The two cohabitants’ relationship ended, Ms. Bowman “asserted a right to a beneficial interest in the property arising out of a constructive trust.” She argued that an agreement was reached between her and Mr. Fels that the property would be bought jointly. The proceedings of the case had started, and the trail was set for March 25th 2004. It so happened that upon inspection of the defendants’ trail bundle by the claimant’s solicitors a discrepancy was found. They suspected that the defendant had included cost of work carried out at his home with...

... middle of paper ...

...nclusion

While the judgment in the case of Bowman v Fels has allowed lawyers to feel safe from prosecution under s.328, and while the judgment has upheld the golden principle of legal privilege, there are larger questions which arise about what justice is and how we go about attaining it. Does our legal system want to protect individuals it knows or suspects to be guilty of a crime? It is true that the backbone of our legal system is the right to a fair trial, but should that right extend to known criminals? Is the objective of justice not being served through the prosecution of a known/suspected felon? Can in particular circumstances the means justify the end? These are all contentious questions that are brought up by this case, questions that have no right or wrong answer, questions rooted deeply in an individual’s interpretation of what is moral and what is just.