Da Costa v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation1968-0822 HCA A,[1968] HCA 51
Date1968
Year1968
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
19 cases
  • Braysich v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 11 May 2011
    ...omitted); [2005] HCA 34, and see Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 at 117–118 per Barwick CJ; [1971] HCA 20. 46Da Costa v The Queen (1968) 118 CLR 186 at 213–215 per Owen J, Kitto, Menzies and Windeyer JJ agreeing; [1968] HCA 51; Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen [1963] AC 220 at 229–230 per L......
  • Johnson v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Conway v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 7 February 2002
    ...refuse a new trial in an appeal from the Northern Territory on the ground that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. In Da Costa v The Queen82, Owen J thought that, when evidence was wrongly admitted, the Court could not refuse to order a new trial. But in the same case, Winde......
  • Heron v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 April 2003
    ...206 at 211. 30 [1957] AC 635 at 642. 31Parker v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 665 at 681-682; [1964] AC 1369 at 1392; Da Costa v The Queen (1968) 118 CLR 186 at 213; Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 161-162, 169. See also Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 at 117-118, 32Mancini ......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • The Paradox of Disallowing Duress as a Defence to Murder
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 78-1, February 2014
    • 1 February 2014
    ...is known as the doctrine of excessive self-defence or excessive-force-manslaughter: R v Bozikis [1981] VR 587; Da Costa v The Queen (1968) 118 CLR 186; R v Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448, but see Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 71 ALR 641, a case in which the High Court abolished ......
  • Judicial Review and Merits Review: Are the Boundaries Being Eroded?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 45-4, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...and Anthony Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Thomson Reuters, 5th ed, 2013) 203 n 113. 63 Da Costa v The Queen (1968) 118 CLR 186, 194–5 (Windeyer J). 64 OV and OW v Members of The Board of The Wesley Mission Council (2010) 79 NSWLR 606, 610 [8] (Allsop P). 2017 Judicial Re......