Ratten v R
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | 1974-0925 HCA C |
| Date | 1974 |
| Year | 1974 |
| Court | High 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
144 cases
- Leong Hong Khie v PP and Tan Gong Wai v PP
- Md Desa bin Hashim v PP
- Syarikat Goh Guan Ho and Others; Goh Cheng Teik and Another
- Juraimi Husin v PP
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
A Comparison and Critique of Closed Court Hearings
...(McHugh J); X7 vAustralian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29 at [97] and [124] (Hayne andBell JJ), at [160] (Kiefel J); Ratten vThe Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 517 (Barwick CJ).96 (1998) 195 CLR 594 at 602.97 Cross on Evidence: Eighth Australian Edition (LexisNexis Australia: 2010) 613, citing......
-
THE UNSTABLE PROVINCE OF JURY FACT-FINDING: EVIDENCE EXCLUSION, PROBATIVE VALUE AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AFTER IMM V. THE QUEEN.
...of the complete trial hearing': at 619 [89]. (148) Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 82 ALR 10, 31 (Deane J). (149) Ratten vlhe Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510, 516 (Barwick (150) Hocking v Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430, 440 (Latham CJ), quoted in Baden-Clay (n 104) 329 [65]. Of course, strictly speaking, ......
-
Does Australia Need a Specific Institution to Correct Wrongful Convictions?
...from the ‘fresh evidence’ criteria — generally a requirement before the appeal courtswill hear the evidence (Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; Gallagher v R (1986)160 CLR 392).The remaining appellate review court, the High Court, has determined that byvirtue of Australia’s Constitution......