Pearce v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date1998
Neutral Citation1998-0910 HCA B,[1998] HCA 57
Year1998
Date1998
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
1127 cases
  • AJS v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 13 June 2007
    ... ... Thus, reference was made to the incontrovertibility of a verdict of acquittal 11 and to the necessity for a person who has been charged with and acquitted of an offence to have the full benefit of that acquittal 12 ... And particular reference was made to the Court's decisions in Pearce v The Queen 13 and Island Maritime 14 concerning questions of double jeopardy. But the issues that now arise for consideration are more particular than the statements of general principle that have been mentioned, and differ in important respects from the questions of double jeopardy considered ... ...
  • Dai v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • Public Prosecutor v Datuk Hj Wasli Mohd Said
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2005
  • DS v Judges of Cork Circuit Court and DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 16 October 2006
    ...STATE v CURRAN 1987 ILRM 225 EVISTON v DPP 2002 3 IR 260 GREEN v US 1957 355 US 184 DEMIROK v QUEEN 19777 137 CLR 20 PEARCE v R 1998 HCA 57 O'LEARY v CUNNINGHAM 1998 IR 379 US v PEREZ 1824 9 WHEAT 579 1824 22 US 579 WADE v HUNTER 1949 336 US 684 R v HENWORTH 2001 2 CAR 47 AG v KELLY (NO 2......
  • Get Started for Free
6 books & journal articles
  • Involuntary Detention and the Separation of Judicial Power
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 35-1, March 2007
    • 1 March 2007
    ...(2004) 225 CLR 1, 23 [53] (McHugh J). 10 For discussion of these doctrines, see, eg, R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251. 11 Tasmanian Breweries (1970) 123 CLR 361, 374 (Kitto J). 12 (2004) 225 CLR 1. 13 Ibid 12 [17]. ......
  • PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...under ss 84(1) and 84(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act. 69[1964] AC 1254. 70 It means “formerly convicted”. 71 See Pearce v The Queen(1998) 194 CLR 610; Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski(2006) 226 CLR 72Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions[1964] AC 1254 at 1309. 73Arjun Upadhya v Publ......
  • CONDITIONING SENTENCING TO PREVENT DOUBLE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS WHO COMMIT OFFENCES WHILE ON CONDITIONAL LIBERTY.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 46 No. 1, December 2022
    • 1 December 2022
    ...P). For cases where double jeopardy was accepted, see, eg, R v Garth (2008) 186 A Crim R 28, 38 [32] (Judd J); Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610, 624 [49] (McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ); Environmental Protection Authority v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 502, 510-1......
  • Human Rights in the High Court of Australia, 1976-2003: The Righting of Australian Law?
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 33-2, June 2005
    • 1 June 2005
    ...Frank Carrigan, 'A Blast From the Past: The Resurgence Of Legal Formalism' (2003) 27 Melbourne University Law Review 163. 12 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 ('Pearce'). Pearce was selected for the sense of the quotidian that it evokes. It is by no means a beacon of High Court jurisprudence. R......
  • Get Started for Free