Clough v Leahy
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | 1904-1205 HCA A,[1904] HCA 38 |
| Date | 1904 |
| Court | High Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
43 cases
- Church of Scientology Inc. v Woodward
- Bollag v Attorney-General (Cth)
-
Goodman International v Hamilton
...12 Co. Rep. 31; 77 E.R. 1312. Central Dublin Development Association v. The Attorney General(1975) 109 I.L.T.R. 69. Clough v. Leahy (1904) 2 C.L.R. 139. Cock v. The Attorney General (1909) 28 N.Z.L.R. 405. Conway v. Gerald [1965] I.R. 401. Costello v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1984] ......
-
Wainohu v New South Wales
...under prerogative or by statutory authority to inquire and to report to government, are non-judicial in character: Clough v Leahy (1904) 2 CLR 139; [1904] HCA 38; McGuinness v Attorney-General (Vict) (1940) 63 CLR 73 at 84 per Latham CJ, 100–101 per Dixon J; [1940] HCA 6; Lockwood v The Com......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Public policy and private illegality in the pursuit of evidence
...1 AC 304 at 315; Ridgeway vThe Queen (1994–1995) 184 CLR 19 at 54 (Brennan J), 73 (GaudronJ), 81 (McHugh J). See, further, Clough vLeahy (1904) 2 CLR 139 at 155–156 (Griffith CJ); AvHayden (1984) 156 CLR532 at 540 (Gibbs CJ), 562 (Murphy J), 580–582 at 588–589 (Brennan J), 592 (Deane J); Br......
-
THE DEFENCE ACT 1903 (CTH): A GUIDE FOR RESPONDING TO AUSTRALIA'S LARGE-SCALE DOMESTIC EMERGENCIES.
...156 CLR 532, 540 (Gibbs CJ), 550 (Mason J), 562 (Murphy J), 573-4 (Wilson and Dawson JJ), 580 (Brennan J), 593 (Deane J); Clough v Leahy(1904) 2 CLR 139, 155-6 (Griffith CJ). As noted by Tindal CJ in his charge to the grand jury regarding the 1832 Bristol Riots, quoted in R v Pinney(1832) 5......
-
The Use of Lethal Force by Military Forces on Law Enforcement Operations — is There a ‘Lawful Authority’?
...ought to serve the Crown according to the laws. It is expressed more appropriately for the present case by Griffith CJ in Clough v Leahy (1904) 2 CLR 139, 155–6: "If an act is unlawful — forbidden by law — a person who does it can claim no protection by saying that he acted under the author......