Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Australia | 1-800-335-6202

R v Macfarlane; ex parte O'flanagan and O'kelly

Cited authorities 44 Cited in 76 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation[1923] HCA 39,1923-0823 HCA B
Date1923
CourtHigh Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
62 cases
  • Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Company Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Hogan v Hinch
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 10 March 2011
    ...understanding of those and other attributes of the federal judicial power may be assisted by the remarks of Isaacs J in R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan and O'Kelly118: ‘The final and paramount consideration in all cases is that emphasized in Scott v Scott119, namely, “to do justice” (Vi......
  • Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Walsh
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 6 September 2001
    ...for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 165 CLR 178 at 183- 184 per Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ. 35 (1923) 32 CLR 518 . As to the recognition that British subjects were not then aliens, see also Jerger v Pearce (1920) 27 CLR 526; Ex parte Walsh and Johnson; In r......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 40-3, September 2012
    • 1 September 2012
    ...page 10. 41 R v Kwok (2005) 64 NSWLR 335. 42 BUSB v The Queen (2011) 80 NSWLR 17; see also R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan (1923) 32 CLR 518; Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506. 43 See, eg, the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), which has codified the grounds on ......
  • The Constitution and the Substantive Principles of Judicial Review: The Full Scope of the Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial Review
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 39-3, September 2011
    • 1 September 2011
    ...(2003) 211 CLR 476, 492; Abebe (1999) 197 CLR 510, 560 (Gummow and Hayne JJ) quoting R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan and O'Kelly (1923) 32 CLR 518, 541–2 (Issacs J). 221 (1947) 74 CLR 31, 82. 490 Federal Law Review Volume 39 ______________________________________________________________......
  • Balancing fairness to victims, society and defendants in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses: an impossible triangulation?
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 37 No. 3, April - April 2014
    • 1 April 2014
    ...Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 25(2)(g)-(h). (105) See, eg, R v Macfarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan (1923) 32 CLR 518, 541-2 (Isaacs J); McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468, 478 (Mason CJ, Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292......
  • Courts and Social Change
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review No. 33-3, September 2005
    • 1 September 2005
    ...the intervention of the legislatures. The sequence of events is described by Isaacs J in R v McFarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan and O'Kelly (1923) 32 CLR 518, 558–61. I am grateful to Justice Paul Finn for drawing these cases to my attention. 67 When the High Court recently reaffirmed the immun......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

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