Subramaniam v R
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Judge | Gleeson CJ,McHugh,Kirby,Hayne,Allinan JJ |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | 2004-1110 HCA A,[2004] HCA 51 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | S588/2003 |
| Date | 10 November 2004 |
-
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
45 cases
-
Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 13)
...Queen [2012] ACTCA 55 [22] (Refshauge J). 49 [2013] ACTCA 52 [11]. 50 (1993) 177 CLR 378, 395–6 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). 51 (2004) 79 ALJR 116, 122 [25] (citation in original). 52 Jago (1989) 168 CLR 23, 50. 53 Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116, 122–3 [26]–[27] (emphasi......
-
Pedro Perara-Cathcart(Appellant) v The Queen
...HCA 34. 92Domican (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 562 per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. 93Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 124 [38]–[39], 125–126 [41]–[42]; 211 ALR 1 at 11, 13; [2004] HCA 51; Amado-Taylor [2000] 2 Cr App R 189 at 191 per Henry 94Stokes & Diffor......
-
AK v The State of Western Australia
...Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300 at 317 [46]. 122Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365 at 373. 123 For an analogy, see Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 126 [44] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ; 211 ALR 1 at 14; [2004] HCA 124 (1998) 197 CLR 250 at 263 [30] per Glees......
-
Evans v The Queen
...cf Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365 at 379–380. 59 See Stanoevski v The Queen (2001) 202 CLR 115 at 129 [54]; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 127–128 [52]–[54]; 211 ALR 1 at 16; Libke v The Queen (2007) 81 ALJR 1309 at 1320 [41], 1327 [83], 1333–1334 [121]–[126]; 235 ALR 51......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Unfitness to stand trial and the indefinite detention of persons with cognitive disabilities in Australia: human rights challenges and proposals for change.
...to Be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) pt 3. (43) See, eg, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 19(2). In Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 211 ALR 1, 12 [40], the High Court noted that the purpose of these hearings first ... to see that justice is done, as best as it can be in the circum......