Clough v Leahy

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation1904-1205 HCA A,[1904] HCA 38
Year1904
Date1904

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
44 cases
  • Church of Scientology Inc. v Woodward
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Bollag v Attorney-General (Cth)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Goodman International v Hamilton
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1992
    ...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] ......
  • Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKTI
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 26 August 2009
    ...29 (1979) 141 CLR 672 ; [1979] HCA 26. 30 (1979) 141 CLR 672 at 679. 31 (1985) 155 CLR 342 at 361–362; [1985] HCA 23. 32Clough v Leahy (1904) 2 CLR 139 at 157 per Griffith CJ; [1904] HCA 33 Section 420(1). 34 Letter from the RRT to the first respondent of 11 April 2007: see [14] above. 12......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Public policy and private illegality in the pursuit of evidence
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 21-1-2, January 2017
    • 1 January 2017
    ...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.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, April 2022
    • 1 April 2022
    ...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’?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 37-3, September 2009
    • 1 September 2009
    ...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......