Callis v Gunn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1963 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
-
- 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
24 cases
-
William Penn v The Queen
...of any such oppression there is nothing else which would justify the exercise of discretion in favour of excluding this evidence. Callis v Gunn [1964] 1 QB. 495 and R v Buckingham and Vickers [1946] 1 WWR 425 followed 2. There is no evidence more directly relevant than a video tape showin......
-
Chan Chi Pun v Public Prosecutor
... ... to exclude it if its reception would operate unfairly against the accused: Cheng Swee Tiang v PP , following Kuruma s/o Kaniu v R and Callis v Gunn ... We did not think this principle of law to be in doubt, and, indeed, counsel did not seek to query it. We thought it useful, nonetheless, to ... ...
-
Maycock et Al v Commissioner of Police
...C.J., thought it could be: Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] A.C. 197, 204, Lord Parker, C.J., and Lord Widgery, C.J. thought so too: see Callis v. Gunn [1964] 1 Q.B. 495, 502 and Jeffrey v. Black [1978] Q.B. 490. The dicta of three successive Lord Chief Justices are not to be lightly rejected. It......
-
R v Outar (Roy), Jonathan Outar, Ralph Outar, Trevor Outar and Randal Titus
...to its admissibility so long as the evidence is relevant in the trial of the criminal offence: (See Kuruma v.R [1955] A.C. 197, Callis v. Gunn [1964] 1 Q.B. 495; Regina v. Sang [1980] A.C. 402 ). Furthermore, entrapment is not a defence to a criminal offence charged ( Reg. v. Sang above ......
Request a trial to view additional results