Deokinanan v The Queen

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1968
Date1968
Year1968
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
34 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 July 2010
    ...ie “anyone who has authority or control over the accused or over the proceedings or the prosecution against him” (Deokinanan v The Queen [1969] 1 AC 20 at 33). Such an inducement would effectively be made by an interpreter or any other person not in authority “on a frolic of his own”, and w......
  • R v Rowe
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 27 July 2004
    ...760; [1967] 1 All E.R. 177, followed. (4) D.P.P. v. Ping Lin, [1976] A.C. 574; [1975] 3 All E.R. 175, applied. (5) Deokinanan v. R., [1969] 1 A.C. 20; [1968] 2 All E.R. 346, followed. (6) Francois v. StateUNK(1987), 40 W.I.R. 376, applied. (7) R. v. Prager, [1972] 1 All E.R. 1114; (1972), 5......
  • Patricia Henry v R
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 1 April 2011
    ...of these submissions, Mr. Senior-Smith referred us to a trio of well known cases on confession evidence, Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599, Deokinanan v The Queen [1969] AC 20 and Director of Public Prosecutions v Ping Lin [1976] AC 574. 24On ground two, Mr. Senior-Smith submitted that the eviden......
  • R. v. Douglas (R.D.), (2005) 387 A.R. 1 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 28 February 2005
    ...269; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 569; 7 C.R.(6th) 300; 2002 CarswellBC 3129; 2002 BCCA 0658, refd to. [para. 219, footnote 62]. Deokinanan v. R., [1969] 1 A.C. 20; [1968] 2 All E.R. 346; 52 Cr. App. Rep. 241 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 221, footnote 63]. R. v. Stewart (1980), 21 A.R. 300; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 93; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 2010
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...and as the ensuing discussion shows, it is capable of causing confusion and technical decisions, which do no credit to the law. 53[1969] 1 AC 20 (on appeal from Hong Kong). 54R v Wilson[1967] 2 QB 406 at 415. Jeffrey Pinsler, Evidence and the Litigation Process (Singapore: LexisNexis, 3rd E......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT