Re Criminal Investigations (Frankfurt)

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Murphy, J.)
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1999
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 14 January 1999

Grand Court

(Murphy, J.)

IN THE MATTER OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BY THE FRANKFURT POLICE

C.G. Quin for the applicant;

S. Hall-Jones, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

Cases cited:

(1) H., In re, 1996 CILR 237, followed.

(2) Law Socy. v. Elder, [1956] 2 Q.B. 93; [1956] 2 All E.R. 65, distinguished.

Legislation construed:

Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law (1995 Revision) (Law 16 of 1976, revised 1995), s.4(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 3, lines 15–20.

s.4(7): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 3, lines 21–29.

Confidential Relationships-application to court for directions-locus standi-investigation by foreign police under aegis of state prosecutor with no identified defendant not ‘proceeding being inquired into by any authority’ within meaning of Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law (1995 Revision), s.4(1)-relevant proceeding must be judicial proceeding before court or similar body

The applicant bank applied for directions under the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law (1995 Revision), s.4.

The bank received a request from the Frankfurt Police for confidential information about a person who had inquired about opening a corporate account with the bank and who was under investigation in Germany for suspected blackmail. The request was supported by a letter from the State Attorney in charge of the investigation, at the Frankfurt court, referring to the matter by its case number. The bank sought directions on whether to comply with the request.

It submitted that the request fell within the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law, s.4(1) since (a) it had been requested to give such information ‘in evidence’ in the context of a ‘proceeding being…inquired into by a court, tribunal or any authority’; and (b) a proceeding was defined by s.4(7) as including ‘a preliminary matter leading to a [court] proceeding’ and therefore covered investigations by a State Attorney as an ‘authority.’

The Crown submitted in reply that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application since an investigation by the Frankfurt Police led by a State Attorney was not ‘a proceeding’ within the meaning of s.4(1); the inquiry referred to in the sub-section had to be by an ‘authority’ in the nature of a court or tribunal.

Held, dismissing the application:

The court had no jurisdiction to give directions under s.4(1) of the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law (1995 Revision), since neither the Frankfurt Police nor the State Attorney was an ‘authority’ inquiring into a ‘proceeding’ in which evidence was to be given by the applicant. In keeping with the common law on judicial comity, the word ‘authority’ was to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words and was intended to mean a body in the nature of a court or tribunal and not merely a law enforcement agency. Accordingly, the application would be dismissed (page 3, line 45 – page 4, line 13).

15	MURPHY, J.: This is an application brought by Bank B for directions
pursuant to s.4 of the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law
(1995 Revision) (‘the Law’).
During the months of September and October 1998 Bank B engaged in
a series of communications with an individual apparently resident in
20	Germany who had inquired about Bank B”s services generally and in
particular about the opening of a corporate

...