Pretrial — admissibility of evidence — threatening to kill — threatening to do grievous bodily harm — lawyer obligations to client — privilege — client-lawyer confidentiality — Evidence Act 2006, ss 5, 54(1), 67 & 69 — Crimes Act 1961, s 306 — New Zealand Law Society Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 8.2 — Rakusen v Ellis, Munday & Clarke 2012 1CH831 — Sky City Investments Christchurch Ltd v Thomas HC Christchurch CIV-2004-409-289, 21 September 2004 — Bain v R [2009] NZSC 16. The defendant faced charges of threatening to kill and threatening to do grievous bodily harm. The charges arose when the defendant's lawyer (the witness) rang to remind him that he was due in Court soon. The witness alleged that during the conversation the defendant had threatened to shoot the Judge at his trial and then kill his brother. As a result, the witness filed a court memorandum about the conversation and also notified the police. The defendant challenged the admissibility of the witness's evidence. He submitted that the witness had owed him a duty of confidence, which prevented her from telling a jury what he had said. The prosecution argued that the purpose of the phone call was merely to remind the defendant to go to Court, so there was no duty of confidentiality attaching. Given the seriousness of the defendant's threats, the witness had been professionally obliged to report them to the police. The Court agreed with the prosecution. The phone call had contained no confidential legal discussion that would create a duty of confidentiality. Also the witness's actions in reporting the threats were consistent with her professional duty to uphold the rule of law. The defendant also submitted that the witness could not have known who the defendant was referring to when he made the threat to kill. Therefore the witness's assumption that the defendant had been referring to his brother in particular was mere speculation. The Court found that in the circumstances the witness had been entitled to assume that the defendant was referring to his brother whom he had allegedly assaulted, which had been the subject of the upcoming court appearance. The Court found the evidence admissible. Judgment Date: 1 February 2022