Bulejcik v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation[1996] HCA 50,1996-0417 HCA B
Date1996
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
21 cases
  • Evans v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 13 December 2007
    ......Prosecution counsel's requests were also relevant in being capable of eliciting answers favourable to the prosecution. . 182 The accused submitted, apparently relying on Bulejcik v The Queen 137 , that evidence of the speech idiosyncrasy shared by the accused and the offender was irrelevant unless the jury could compare the accused's voice in court with an out of court recording. That case affords no warrant for the submission, which is contrary to principle. . ......
  • Festa v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 13 December 2001
    ...R 58 at 72. 55R v O'Sullivan unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, 21 July 1995 at 4. 56 cf Bulejcik v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 375 at 381–382 per Brennan CJ, 394–395 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ, 406–407 per McHugh and Gummow JJ. 57 (1968) 117 CLR 313 at 316. 58 [1946] KB ......
  • AK v The State of Western Australia
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 26 March 2008
    ...Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 352(1)(ab). 36R v Taufahema (2007) 228 CLR 232 at 256 [52]; [2007] HCA 11. 37Bulejcik v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 375; [1996] 185 CLR. 38 Union v State 66 SE 24 (Ga App, 1909) (‘the liquid … smelled like whisky’); Sherrard v Jacob [1965] NILR 151 at 160 (‘f......
  • Dhanhoa v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 5 August 2003
    ......See also the consistent approach of courts in England and New Zealand: R v Daily Mirror; Ex parte Smith [1927] 1 KB 845 ; Attorney-General v Noonan [1956] NZLR 1021 ; Attorney-General v Tonks [1934] NZLR 141 . . 34 Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650 ; Bulejcik v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 375 ; Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 612 ; 130 ALR 35 ; Prasad v The Queen (1994) 68 ALJR 194 ; 119 ALR 399 ; Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 . . 35 For example: MFA v The Queen (2002) 77 ALJR 139 ; 193 ALR 184 (ss 55 and 164 ); ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Quasi-Expert Witness: Fish or Fowl?
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 73-2, April 2009
    • 1 April 2009
    ...witness's purported identif‌ication of the offender fromtwo words spoken three years previously. In the Australian case of Bulejcik v R(1996) 185 CLR 375, the jury were asked to compare the defendant’s voice in146 The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL of identif‌ication evidence.7The di......
  • A fair ‘hearing’
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 21-3, July 2017
    • 1 July 2017
    ...in his list.6. Jury voice comparisons have been deemed an acceptable form of voice identification evidence; Bulejcik vThe Queen, (1996)185 CLR 375. See also RvSolomon [2005] SASC 265 at [57] (‘I proceed on the basis that Bulejcik is authority for theproposition that the jury can compare rec......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT