Walton v R
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | 1989-0209 HCA C,[1989] HCA 9 |
| Date | 1989 |
| 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
31 cases
-
Bull v R; King v R; Marotta v R
...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
- Bannon v R
-
Daniel Jefferey Sio(Appellant/Applicant) v The Queen
...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] ......
Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
-
REFLECTIONS ON S 2(2) OF SINGAPORE EVIDENCE ACT AND ROLE OF COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE
...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
...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
...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......
-
Accommodating Legal Pluralism in Pacific Courts: Problems of Proof of Customary Law
...Justice Act 2003 (UK), Part 11.80 See, e.g., RvSmith [1992] 2 SCR 219; RvStarr [2000] 2 SCR 144.81 See, e.g., Walton vThe Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 at 293–4.82 In Bannon vThe Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1 at 7–8, Brennan CJ expressly rejected the reliability test.83 Laws of Kiribati Act 1980, s. 4(......
Request a trial to view additional results