Joshua v The Queen

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1955
Year1955
Date1955
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
10 cases
  • DPP v Padraig Nally
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 12 Octubre 2006
    ... [1993] 2 IR 1, People (DPP) v O'Shea [1982] IR 384, R v Wang [2005] 1 WLR 661, Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, Joshua v The Queen [1955] AC 121, Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763 and DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55 followed - Appeal allowed, retrial order (244/2005 - CCA - 12/10/2006) [2006] IE......
  • R. v. Morgentaler, (1988) 26 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 28 Enero 1988
    ...Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [para. 52]. Joshua v. The Queen, [1955] A.C. 121 (P.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Shipley (1784), 4 Dougl. 73; 99 E.R. 774, refd to. [para. 60]. U.S. v. Dougherty (1972), 473 F. 2d 1113, refd......
  • R. v. Morgentaler, (1988) 82 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 28 Enero 1988
    ...Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [para. 52]. Joshua v. The Queen, [1955] A.C. 121 (P.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Shipley (1784), 4 Dougl. 73; 99 E.R. 774, refd to. [para. 60]. U.S. v. Dougherty (1972), 473 F. 2d 1113, refd......
  • R v Withers
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 20 Noviembre 1974
    ...public mischief, just as the conviction in Brailsford might have been upheld solely on the ground that it was a conspiracy to cheat. 16In Joshua v. R. [1955] A.C. 121 (P.C.) where the accused was charged with effecting a public mischief by inflaming members of the public against the police......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Comment
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 49-3, August 1985
    • 1 Agosto 1985
    ...is that it is for the judge todirect on the law but the jury are the sole judges of the facts (perLord Oaksey in Joshua v. The Queen [1955]A.C.121 at 130). Anumberof recent cases have been concerned with the propriety of atrial judge usurping the function of the jury by directing a finding ......

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