Stingel v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation[1990] HCA 61,1990-1220 HCA E
Date1990
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
42 cases
  • Taiapa v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 16 December 2009
    ...Dixon J; [1938] HCA 12; Ugle v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 171; [2002] HCA 25; Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193; [2002] HCA 26. 4Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 334 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ; [1990] HCA 61; Van Den Hoek v The Queen (......
  • Donnellan v Min for Justice and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 July 2008
    ...can do anything to stop the passage of the years. As the High Court of Australia said (in a different context) in Stingel v. The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312, 330: 'the process of development from childhood to maturity is something which, being common to us all, is an aspect of ordinariness.'" ......
  • DPP v McNamara
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 26 June 2020
    ...withdrawal. In the Australian form of the modified objective test, that role was upheld by the High Court of Australia in Stingle v R (1990) 171 CLR 312 so as to justify withdrawing a provocation defence from the jury. There, the teenaged accused had come across his former girlfriend in a c......
  • Fox v the Queen
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 2 October 2001
    ...The High Court of Australia, where the common law also still applies, came to a similar conclusion in Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312. 19 Mr Fitzgerald, who appeared for the appellant, did not really dispute that the reaction was so disproportionate that no reasonable jury could have......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Descent into Murder: Provocation's Stricture—The Prognosis for Women Who Kill Men Who Abuse Them
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 71-4, August 2007
    • 1 August 2007
    ...opinion expressed byGibbs J in Moffa v R (1977) 138 CLR 601 at 616, cited with approval by the HighCourt of Australia in Stingel v R (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 326. Whether such aprinciple could be successfully invoked in cases such as, for example, the “batteredwife syndrome” is a matter upon w......
  • Political Rhetoric or Principled Reform of Loss of Control? Anglo-Australian Perspectives on the Exclusionary Conduct Model
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 77-6, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...If so, why not say so?’.133 NSWLCSC, above n. 1 at paras 9.65–9.67.134 These facts are derived from the case of Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312.135 L. Richards, H. Fletcher and D. Jewell, Independent Parliamentary Inquiry intoStalking Law Reform. Main Findings and Recommendations (20......
  • The Paradox of Disallowing Duress as a Defence to Murder
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 78-1, February 2014
    • 1 February 2014
    ...account in deciding whether the so-called objective component of the provocation defence has been satisf‌ied, see Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 324, 327; Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 129 ALR 575 at 581. For the English view on which of the accused’s personal attributes were t......
  • “A Puny Thing Indeed”1—Cheng V the Queen and the Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury
    • United Kingdom
    • Federal Law Review Nbr. 29-1, March 2001
    • 1 March 2001
    ...communication is attracted; John v FCT (1989)166 CLR 417, as to when the Court will overrule its own decisions; and, Stingel v The Queen(1990) 171 CLR 312, as to the availability of a defence of 2001 Cheng v The Queen and the Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury 107________________________......
  • 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