(High Court of Australia) The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that their cross examinations had been improperly restricted by the judge at trial.
Held: The court considered the limit of permissible cross-examination.
Judges:
Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey and McHugh JJ
Citations:
(1990) 93 ALR 79, (1990) 64 ALJR 321
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Daya Kalia CACD 1974
One of the difficulties associated with granting of bail in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, is the trauma caused to the appellant being returned to prison if his appeal fails. Roskill LJ said: ‘This Court desires to say as plainly as . .
Cited – Mechanical and General Inventions Co. and Lehwess v Austin and the Austin Motor Co HL 1935
Lord Hanworth MR discussed the general nature of cross-examination, saying: ‘Cross-examination is a powerful and valuable weapon for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness and the accuracy and completeness of his story. It is entrusted to . .
Cited – Regina v Maynard and Other CACD 1979
It is the duty of the trial judge to control vexatious, unfair, misleading or irrelevant cross-examination. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Shayler CACD 29-Jul-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying the restrictions placed upon him in conducting his defence because the fact that he had been a member of the secret services, meant that he had been unable to conduct his defence properly, with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Crime
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.470723