Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtPrivy Council
Judgment Date1894
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
305 cases
  • PP; Rauf bin Haji Ahmad
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1950
  • DPP v McNeill
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 8 April 2011
    ...statutory provision to the contrary, the evidence is to be excluded under the first rule in Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] A.C. 57 because its prejudicial effect may be more powerful than its probative effect, and thus endanger a fair trial." 205 45. Most tellingl......
  • R v Boardman
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 1 January 1974
  • R v Boardman
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 13 November 1974
    ...their minds. 12My Lords, the well-known words of Lord Herschell L.C. in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] A.C. 57 have always been accepted as expressing cardinal principles. On the one hand, it is clear that the prosecutio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
  • Indexes
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 18-4, October 2014
    • 1 October 2014
    ...vHM Advocate 1997SCCR 116 . . . 16MacNeill vWilson 1981 SCCR80 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales[1894]AC 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272Manuel vHM Advocate 1958JC 41. . . . . . . . . . . 22Marks vBeyfus [1890] 25QBD 494 . . . .......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 15-4, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    .... . 317Mabo vQueensland (No. 2)(1992) 175 CLR1 . . . 4,6, 7Mahomed vR [2011] NZSC52 . . . . . 332, 361–366Makin v Attorney-General of NSW [1894] AC 57. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .364Marrogi vHoward 805 So2d 1118 (2002) . . . . 258McD vL [2009] IES......
  • Misconduct That ‘Has to Do with the Alleged Facts of the Offence with Which the Defendant is Charged’ … More or Less
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 72-3, June 2008
    • 1 June 2008
    ...where simply the fact of being homosexual might rebut a defence ofinnocent association.70 For example, Rv Francis (1874) 43 LJMC 97.71 [1894] AC 57 at 65.72 See, e.g., R. Munday, ‘R v. Ollis and the Proof of Guilt by Previous Acquittal’ (1995)159 JP Jo 768 and 790. 73 [2007] EWCA Crim 2927,......
  • Assessing Significant Probative Value for the Purposes of Admitting Coincidence Evidence: DSJ v R; NS v R
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 17-2, January 2013
    • 1 January 2013
    ...established by the Act reverses this approach, so that provided bad 2 See, for example, Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57 at 68, Lord For example, Queensland continues to apply the common law rules relating to such evidence:BBH v The Queen [2012] HCA 9, (2012) 245 CL......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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