Patel v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
JudgeFrench CJ,Hayne,Kiefel,Bell JJ
Judgment Date24 August 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] HCA 29,2012-0824 HCA A
CourtHigh Court
Docket NumberB11/2012 & B25/2011
Date24 August 2012
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
16 cases
  • The Queen v Rolfe (No 7)
    • Australia
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 2022
    ...[2012] VSCA 47; O'Keefe v R [2009] NSWCCA 121; Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297 at 325; [1999] HCA 37; Patel v R (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29; Qualiteri v R (2006) 171 A Crim R 463; [2006] NSWCCA 95; R v Allen [2020] NSWCCA 173; R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131; R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52......
  • Mark Edward Lundy v R
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 Diciembre 2019
    ...(2008) 236 CLR 358 at [129] per Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ. 29 Weiss v R [2005] HCA 81, (2005) 224 CLR 300 at [36]. See also Patel v R [2012] HCA 29, (2012) 247 CLR 531 at [128] per Heydon 30 As happened in Wilde, above n 19, at 377 and 385. 31 Matenga, above n 18, at [31] (footnote omitt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Whither, hither and thither, Res Gestae? A comparative analysis of its relevance and application
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 25-4, October 2021
    • 1 Octubre 2021
    ...Pty Ltd vHawchar [2011] HCA 21at [78]; Roach vThe Queen [2011] HCA 12 at [30]; Baker vThe Queen [2012] HCA 27 at [117]; Patel vThe Queen [2012]HCA 29 at [183]; Pipikos vTrayans [2018] HCA 39 at [62] and [95]; Commonwealth of Australia vHelicopter Resources PtyLtd [2020] HCA 16 at [49].67. E......
  • Differential or deferential to media? The effect of prejudicial publicity on judge or jury
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 22-2, April 2018
    • 1 Abril 2018
    ...when the matter comes onfor hearing. In the most extreme of circumstances, where a jury could not be expected to deliver a verdict14. [2012] HCA 29, [116].15. Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd vIbrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125, [78].16. RvQaumi & Ors (No 16) (Internet “take down” ord......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT