R v Miller
| Jurisdiction | Victoria |
| Date | 1951 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 cases
-
R v Chan-Fook
... ... 'Bodily harm' needs no explanation, and 'grievous' means no more and no less than 'really serious'. In this connection your Lordships will refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of R.v.Miller [1951] VLR 346, 357). In giving the judgment of the Court, Martin J, having expressed the view that the directions of Willes J could only be justified, if at all, in the case of the statutory offence said: '….there does not appear to be any justification for treating the expression 'grievous ... ...
-
AJS v The Queen
...of 1915: Crimes Act 1915 (Vic), ss 452–465. 7 s 421(2). 8 (1923) 32 CLR 509. See also Callaghan v The Queen (1952) 87 CLR 115 at 125. 9 [1951] VLR 346. 10 (2006) 226 CLR 11Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; Island Maritime (2006) 226 CLR 328. 12R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364. 13 (1998) 1......
-
Loone, Peter John v State of Tasmania (The)
...in their joint reasons, to the earlier cases of Kelly v The King (1923) 32 CLR 509; Callaghan v R (1952) 87 CLR 115 and R v Miller [1951] VLR 346. Here the indictment alleged the crime of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. The particulars represented the manner of acquisition, but......