R v Abramovitch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1914 |
| Year | 1914 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- 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
21 cases
- Mohamed Yatin bin Abu Bakar v PP
- Mah Kok Cheong v R
-
People v Lillis
...convey to the jury that the burden of proof had shifted in any degree from the prosecution and is a proper direction. R. v. SchamaUNK 11 Cr. App. R. 45 and The People (Attorney General) v. Berber and LeveyIR [1944] I.R. 405 distinguished. The People (Attorney General) v. Lillis THE PEOPLE (......
-
Public Prosecutor v Lai Tuck Meng and Tan Jwee Shen
...no explanation, or if the Court is satisfied that the explanation is untrue – Sarkar on Evidence, at p 2158; R v Schama (Isaac) (1916) 11 Cr. App. R. 45188. In the present case, the facts are such, in particular relating to the loading of the extra MFO of 150 MT, that it is incontrovertible......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Regulatory Offences and Reverse Burdens: The ‘Licensing Approach’
...and althoughit would be considered ‘truly criminal’ now it had a more regulatory character atthe time. 122 [1987] AC 352 at 370.123 (1914) 11 Cr App R 45.124 (1913) 8 Cr App R 211.125 [1987] AC 352 at Regulatory Offences and Reverse Burdens: The ‘Licensing Approach’ were also clearly practi......
-
Pauline chronology and the problem of evidence: a legal perspective
...J in 7? p of Chester 1 TR 396, 404; per Cockburn CJ in R v Walcot Overseers 2 B & S 555, 560. 78. See, eg, R v Schama, R v Abramov itch (1914) 84 LJKB 396. 79. Everyone is presumed to be sane. The accused must ‘prove’ his defence of insanity on the balance of probabilities. 80. Abolished in......
-
Recent Possession, Larceny and Robbery
...2 K.B. 273, C.C.R., R. v. Kelson (1909)3 Cr. App. Rep. 230, R. v. Theadorus (1909) 3 Cr. App. Rep.269, R. v. Schama &Abramovitch (1914) 84 L.J.K.B. 396, C.C.A.(though this appeal was allowed, on the groundofmisdirection):and in recent years R. v. Loughlin (1951) 35 Cr. App. Rep. 69 andR. v.......
-
Reasonable: The Most Consequential Word in the Criminal Law
...by the defendant. The ‘reasonable doubt’ formula had been developed in the 18th century and crystallised in 1914 in R v Abramovitch (1914) 11 Cr App R 45. So today, if a doubt in the minds of magistrates or jurors is ‘reasonable’, the defendant must be acquitted. Every case depends on how t......