Chamberlain v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1984
Neutral Citation1984-0222 HCA A,[1984] HCA 7
Date1984
Year1984
CourtHigh Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
221 cases
  • Eastman v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 25 May 2000
    ...the duty to set aside the verdict of a jury in a case where a miscarriage of justice has occurred. As was said by Gibbs CJ and Mason J in Chamberlain363: ‘The grant of a general appeal by s 24(1)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act was intended to enable the Full Court of the Federal C......
  • Carr v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Steer v R
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Ltd v Premier Turf Supplies Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
8 books & journal articles
  • The Definition and Discovery of Facts in Native Title: The Historian's Contribution
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 36-3, September 2008
    • 1 September 2008
    ...387–91; Farber, above n 167, 1025–7. 175 Note that some facts are 'indispensable intermediate facts': Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573. 322 Federal Law Review Volume 36 ________________________________________________________________......
  • Case Comments: Some judicial guidelines for establishing the value of immovable property in friendly sequestrations
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...to the role of the expert (compare the discussion of the evidence given by Professor Cameron and Ms Kuhl in Chamberlain & another v R (1984) 51 ALR 225 (High Court of Australia) (the controversial prosecution of Mr and Mrs Chamberlain for murdering, and being an accessory after the fact of ......
  • Does Australia Need a Specific Institution to Correct Wrongful Convictions?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminology (formerly Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology) No. 40-2, August 2007
    • 1 August 2007
    ...essentially fails to meet the ‘unrea-sonable or not supportable on the evidence’ ground (Brennan, J, Chamberlain v TheQueen (no. 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521, p. 604). The provision was used in Easterday vThe Queen [2003] WASCA 69 (28 March 2003) where the prosecution failed todisclose all relevan......
  • The influence of Professor J.H. Wigmore on evidence law in Australia
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 19-1, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...above n. 1 at 133.23. Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.24. Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.25. Chamberlain v R (1984) (No. 2) 153 CLR 521.26. Briginshaw, above n. 23, per Dixon J at 363; Jones v Dunkel, above n. 24, per Windeyer J [at 17]: ‘As Wigmore points (Evidence 3rd ed. (19......
  • Get Started for Free