Penney v The Queen
[1998] HCA 51
Citation 1
(Para 1)
…hranes Road. Further, motive of itself need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, because it is not an element of murder. The decision in Penney v R (1998) 72 ALJR 1316 causes some difficulty. Although obiter (because Penney was about relationship, not motive) Callinan J (in whose judgment and the other justices agre…
Pfennig v the Queen
[1995] HCA 7
Citation 2
(Para 1)
…similar facts has been admitted to prove the identity of the perpetrator: for example Sutton v R (1983-1984) 152 CLR 528 and Pfenning v R (1994-1995) 182 CLR 461). The law was helpfully, if I may say so, summarised by Winneke P. in R v Tektonopoulos (1999) 2 VR 412 at 417, where he said:…
Shepherd v The Queen
[1990] HCA 56
Citation 3
(Para 1)
…is identification. Generally, it is not the law that important facts, short of indispensable intermediate facts as steps contemplated by Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573, need be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the Hamada robberies are not indispensable to the prosecution case. The jury could reject the Hamada e…
R v Murphy
[1985] HCA 50
Citation 4
(Para 1)
…biter (because Penney was about relationship, not motive) Callinan J (in whose judgment and the other justices agreed) at 1321 referred to R v Murphy (1985) 4 NSWLR 42 at 59 to 60, in which Callinan J had appeared as counsel, as follows:…
Sutton v The Queen
[1984] HCA 5
Citation 5
(Para 1)
…Next, in a number of cases evidence of similar facts has been admitted to prove the identity of the perpetrator: for example Sutton v R (1983-1984) 152 CLR 528 and Pfenning v R (1994-1995) 182 CLR 461). The law was helpfully, if I may say so, summarised by Winneke P. in R v Tektonopoulos (1999) 2 VR 412 at 417…
Markby v The Queen
[1978] HCA 29
Citation 6
(Para 1)
…The basal common law principles applicable to such evidence were clearly stated by the Court in Markby v R (1978) 140 CLR 108 at 116 to 117:…
Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Moss
[1906] HCA 70
Citation 7
…or impelling him to do so, and the more heinous the act, the more important becomes the question of motive" MLC Insurance Company of New York v Moss (1906) 4 CLR 311 at 317.…