Mamote-Kulang v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation[1964] HCA 21
Year1964
Date1964

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
24 cases
  • Timbu Kolian v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • He Kaw Teh v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Stevens v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 21 October 2005
    ...665 at 669. 76 (1973) 133 CLR 209 at 231. 77 See also Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56 at 61, 65, 82; Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62 at 69; Timbu Kolian v The Queen (1968) 119 CLR 47 at 67, 71; R v Tralka [1965] Qd R 225 at 228, 78 See above at [55]. 79 See White, Garwood......
  • DPP (Nt) v Wji
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 6 October 2004
    ...to adopt the narrow view (at 71). 129 (1968) 119 CLR 47 at 52–53 per Barwick CJ, 64 per Windeyer J. See also Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62 at 130 (1973) 133 CLR 209 at 231. 131 (2002) 211 CLR 171. 132 (2002) 211 CLR 193. 133 (1973) 133 CLR 209 at 230–231. 134Barlow (1997) 188 ......
  • Get Started for Free