Question about requesting a Subpoena

[Brissyboy]

Hi all and thanks in advance for any help.

Does the court actually read the subpoena requests when requested by a lawyer? I am of the knowledge that self reps have a harder time when requesting subpoenas.
I have just noticed via the portal that the OP lawyer has requested subpoenas to the police, docs and the childrens school.

I dont have a problem with this except the information that is being sought is very wide ranging and also very long in time ( all information since 2011).
It also is seeking information on both parties, both parties partners, plus the children.

For example the request from the police basically states anything and everything that includes the names of the above are to be produced, including traffice offenses, being a witness etc.

Surely that would be seen by the court as a fishing exercise in order to try and find anything that may strengthen their case. I have nothing to hide so Im not bothered but it still feels an invasion of privacy to ask for such wide ranging information.

Im a self rep, but after 2 hearings in court , the OP's legal team have gained no ground and a Child Inclusive Conference was very one sided. The children in question are 13 and 14 and their views are quite strong and consistent.
Im starting to feel like its their last chance is to find out anything in my or my parnters past that may help them.

Surely the Judge would see right through this?

 

[Atticus]

For example the request from the police basically states anything and everything that includes the names of the above are to be produced, including traffice offenses, being a witness etc.

Don't know about DOCS & school, but this one looks way to wide.. Police may oppose itanyway on the grounds that it lacks specificity.

 

[Brissyboy]

Thanks for your reply Atticus.
To me it just looks like an attempt of character assasination, rather than anything to do with the current court case.
I know that in family law all requests for subpoena go through the courts first and have to be approved and these request have come back sealed and "approved" and signed off by a registrar.
I would have thought that having to go through the court to get approved first they would have had to look at the scope of the information being sought.
Like I said, I have nothing to hide, but it just seems they have been given a court approved "fishing expedition" because the requests came through a lawyer.

 

[Docupedia]

This is very general, and exact procedures depend on the court itself: When a subpoena is filed it goes before a Registrar to ensure it meets the technical requirements (i.e. they filled out the form correctly). Whether or not the aspects of the subpoena are imprecise or too wide won’t be considered unless, perhaps, it’s absolutely blatantly so. The courts will rely on the subpoena receiver raising an objection to the subpoena on a valid ground - such as being oppressive, or an abuse of process - depending on the nature of the action and the court. It boils down to showing the subpoena is improper, versus an argument as to relevance. Relevance is difficult from the objector‘s point of view as the court won’t consider if the information is actually relevant. They will consider whether the information is potentially relevant in the scheme of things, and consider costs implications down the line if it turns out not to be relevant.

In many instances a third party can object to the subpoena so long as they have sufficient standing to do so, such as the subpoenaed information is about them. Unless it’s information that is covered by privilege, confidentiality often doesn’t get much traction with the court. Neither will things like embarrassment. Decisions on those aspects can Include the behaviour of the parties - Is one party appearing to try to hide something? Has the requesting party shown a proclivity to wasting the court’s time, or making outlandish claims and request?

The above is different in QCAT. It’s a notice to produce and not a subpoena, and they’re only given by order after making an application and having it determined by a member.

 

[Atticus]

I would have thought that having to go through the court to get approved first they would have had to look at the scope of the information being sought.

The subpoena to police seems to me like it should have been at least questioned .... Both parties, thier partners & children!! Hard to see it as anything but fishing

If the police don't object then you will have to rely on your right to oppose inspection if you wish