R v W.E.F

JurisdictionVictoria
Date1998
Year1998
CourtCourt of Appeal

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
47 cases
  • DPP v Cunningham
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 8 October 2002
    ...materials on which Mr. O'Connell relied. The principle in Babic, cited above, was summarised by Winneke P. in the later case of ER v.WEF [1998] 2VR 385 as follows:- "In normal circumstances, if it is suggested that subsequent events have made or made to appear a sentence, appropriate when p......
  • Bianamu v Rigby
    • Australia
    • Court of Appeal
    • 30 September 2021
    ...[1998] 2 VR 79; R v C [2004] SASC 244; R v Clark [2017] QCA 318; R v Fordham (1997) 98 A Crim R 359; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; R v WEF (1998) 2 VR 385; Smith v R (1987) 44 SASR 587; Re Coldham; Ex parte Brideson (1990) 170 CLR 267 The Queen v MacGowan [1986] 42 SASR 580; The Queen v Nguyen......
  • The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Colbert
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 28 November 2016
    ...exclusive. If it can be said that a sentence is now ‘manifestly excessive’ as was contemplated in the Australian case of R v W.E.F. [1998] 2 V.R. 385 quoted in Cunningham, and a matter is still before a court, then the existence of an executive power of clemency should not preclude a court ......
  • Get Started for Free