Dietrich v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1992
Neutral Citation1992-1113 HCA A,[1992] HCA 57
Date1992
Year1992
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
330 cases
2 firm's commentaries
  • Miranda Rights: Do you have the right to remain silent in Australia?
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 19 January 2023
    ...it has been held that trials should proceed without representation for the accused in exceptional cases only (Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57). When an accused person, through no fault of their own, does not have legal representation when charged with a serious offence, a judge may order......
  • The impact of juror misconduct on the right to a fair trial
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 7 November 2022
    ...the High Court of Australia has described it as "being a central pillar of our criminal justice system"; Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57. And while the common law right has many aspects, one of the most important is the right to be adjudicated by a fact-finder (whether a magistrate, judg......
51 books & journal articles
  • National litigation and international law: repercussions for Australia's protection of marine resources.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 33 No. 1, April 2009
    • 1 April 2009
    ...(1982) 153 CLR 168, 211-12 (Stephen J), (224-5) (Mason J); Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 570 (Gibbs CJ); Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292, 305 (Mason CJ and McHugh (94) See Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, 291 (Mason CJ and Deane J): r......
  • Judicial review of migration decisions: ousting the Hickman private clause?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 26 No. 3, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...57, 123. See also at 121. (108) Ibid 123. See also Abebe (1999) 197 CLR 510, 583-4. (109) Polyukhovich (1991) 172 CLR 501; R v Dietrich (1992) 177 CLR 292; Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; Kable v DPP (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR (110) Evidence to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation......
  • Arbitrate this! Enforcing foreign arbitral awards and chapter III of the Constitution.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 34 No. 2, August 2010
    • 1 August 2010
    ...Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501,612 (Dearie J), 685-6, 689 (Toohey J), 704-5 (Gaudron J). (204) See Dietrich v ?he Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292, 326 (Deane J), 362 (Gaudron J); Wheeler, "Due Process', above n 182, 205-6, (205) See Boilermakers (1956) 94 CLR 254, 275-6 (Dixon C J,......
  • Territory Courts and Federal Jurisdiction
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 33-1, March 2005
    • 1 March 2005
    ...41, 123 (Deane J); Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 15 (Mason CJ and McHugh J), 57–8, 69 (Brennan J); Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292, 297–8, 306–7, 311 (Mason CJ and McHugh J), 316 (Brennan J), 327 (Deane J); Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (......
  • Get Started for Free