Walton v R

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation1989-0209 HCA C,[1989] HCA 9
Date1989
Year1989
CourtHigh Court

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
34 cases
  • Bull v R; King v R; Marotta v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 11 May 2000
    ...It would be original evidence of her intentions, and it would probablybe admissible at common law in accordance with the reasoning in Walton v The Queen61. However, it would tend to prove the complainant's disposition in sexual matters and would not relate to her sexual experiences. On the ......
  • Conway v R
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Bannon v R
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Daniel Jefferey Sio(Appellant/Applicant) v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 24 August 2016
    ...615 [28], 616 [34]–[35]; R v Robertson [2015] QCA 11 at [58]–[64]. 35 Sio v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 42 at [27]. 36 Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 at 293; [1989] HCA 9. 37 Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 at 293. 38 3rd ed (1940), vol 5, §1422. See also Ratten v The Queen [1972] ......
  • Get Started for Free
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Evidence. Sixth Edition
    • 8 September 2011
    ...199 Walmsley v. Humenick, [1954] 2 D.L.R. 232 (B.C.S.C.) .................................... 150 Walton v. R. (1989), 166 C.L.R. 283, [1989] HCA 9 ........................................... 177 Ward v. R., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 30, [1979] 2 W.W.R. 193, 7 C.R. (3d) 153 ....... 333, 334 Waugh v. ......
  • REFLECTIONS ON S 2(2) OF SINGAPORE EVIDENCE ACT AND ROLE OF COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2018, December 2018
    • 1 December 2018
    ...of this chapter. 142 James Fitzjames Stephen, A Digest of the Law of Evidence (Macmillan and Co, 4th Ed, 1887) Arts 10 and 14. 143(1989) 84 ALR 59 at 61–68. 144 See generally Jeffrey Pinsler SC, Evidence and the Litigation Process (LexisNexis, 6th Ed, 2017) at paras 3.048–3.049. 145 See par......
  • The Judicial Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence: Perspectives from an Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 16-4, October 2012
    • 1 October 2012
    ...Issue 2/November 2011 at 3: ‘Corroboration as a distinct concept or a requirement [in Singapore] is superfluous’. 135 [1972] AC 378.136 (1989) 84 ALR 59.137 [1992] 2 AC 228. 420 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE RELEVANT EVIDENCE fabricated or conc......
  • Two English Hearsay Heresies
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 9-2, March 2005
    • 1 March 2005
    ...of the differences.6 As, e.g., their Lordships did in Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228, 255. A different view was taken byMason CJ in Walton v R (1989) 166 CLR 283, 292ff.; Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558, 566.7R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228 at 237.8 See R. Taylor, M. Wasik and R. Leng, Blackstone’s Gui......
  • Get Started for Free