Actions
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Statutory Material Cited
1
-
R v Frencken
[2012] SASCFC 71
Citation 1
(Para 3)
…way are brought to account. I do not read the reasons of the plurality in R v A, D as saying anything to the contrary.[22] [19] [2011] SASCFC 61 [20] [2012] SASCFC 71, (2012) 61 MVR 195 [21] At [18] [22] R v A, D (2011) 109 SASR 197…
-
R v Narayan
[2011] SASCFC 61
Citation 2
(Para 3)
…which point the other way are brought to account. I do not read the reasons of the plurality in R v A, D as saying anything to the contrary.[22] [19] [2011] SASCFC 61 [20] [2012] SASCFC 71, (2012) 61 MVR 195 [21] At [18] [22] R v A, D (2011) 109 SASR 197…
-
R v A, D
[2011] SASCFC 5
Citation 3
(Para 3)
…urality in R v A, D as saying anything to the contrary.[22] [19] [2011] SASCFC 61 [20] [2012] SASCFC 71, (2012) 61 MVR 195 [21] At [18] [22] R v A, D (2011) 109 SASR 197…
-
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45
Citation 4
…LR 270; Anderson v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 520; R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550; Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; R v Stewart (1984) 35 SASR 477; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; R v Huriwai (1994) 20 MVR 166, applied.…
-
R v Mark Thomas Garvin
[2009] ACTSC 87
Citation 5
(Para 14)
…le are to be established by the defendant on the balance of probabilities: The Queen v Olbrich [1], Anderson v The Queen [2], and R v Lobban. [3] [1] (1999) 199 CLR 270 [2] (1993) 177 CLR 520 at 536 [3] (2001) 80 SASR 550 at [28]…
-
R v Ironside
[2009] SASC 151
Citation 6
(Para 30)
…anting powers to a Court by making implications or imposing limitations which are not found in the express words’: PNJ v R .[14] [13] (2009) 104 SASR 54 [14] (2009) 252 ALR 612; (2009) 83 ALJR 384; (2009) 193 A Crim R 54 at [19] and the cases contained in footnote 21 therein…
-
The Queen v Stewart
[2009] NZCA 117
Citation 7
(Para 18)
…point’ non-parole period as a fixed or predetermined proportion of the head sentence: Hili v The Queen .[7] [5] (1990) 169 CLR 525 at 528 [6] (1984) 35 SASR 477 at 479 [7] (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [43]-[44], [70]-[71] Mandatory non-parole period?…
-
PNJ v The Queen
[2009] HCA 6
Citation 8
(Para 30)
…by making implications or imposing limitations which are not found in the express words’: PNJ v R .[14] [13] (2009) 104 SASR 54 [14] (2009) 252 ALR 612; (2009) 83 ALJR 384; (2009) 193 A Crim R 54 at [19] and the cases contained in footnote 21 therein…
-
Anderson v The Queen
[1993] HCA 59
Citation 9
…ing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10; PNJ v R (2009) 252 ALR 612; (2009) 83 ALJR 384; (2009) 193 A Crim R 54, referred to. The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; Anderson v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 520; R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550; Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; R v Stewart (1984) 35 SASR 477; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520…
-
Bugmy v The Queen
[1990] HCA 18
Citation 10
…(2009) 193 A Crim R 54, referred to. The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; Anderson v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 520; R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550; Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; R v Stewart (1984) 35 SASR 477; Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; R v Huriwai (1994) 20 MVR 166, applied.…