R v Austin

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1913
Year1913
CourtCourt of Appeal

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Ho Sheng Yu Garreth v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 January 2012
    ...PP v Tan Teck Hin [ 1992] 1 SLR (R) 672; [1992] 1 SLR 841 (refd) R v Emil Savundra (1968) 52 Cr App R 637 (refd) R v Frederick Austin [1913] 1 KB 551 (refd) R v Johnston [1977] 2 WWR 613 (refd) R v Jonathan Russell Green (1984) 6 Cr App R (S) 329 (refd) Tan Lai Kiat v PP [2010] 3 SLR 1042 (......
  • Ho Sheng Yu Garreth v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 January 2012
    ...the penalty for a first offender did not trouble the English Court of Criminal Appeal in a similar case. In The King v Frederick Austin [1913] 1 KB 551 (“Austin”), the offender was convicted of living on the earnings of prostitution and was deemed a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of ......
  • Rosina Mcmillan v Leonard David Pryce [NTR]
    • Australia
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 August 1997
    ...history in the event he offends after 8 March 1997. It has no retrospective operation. I think the matter is governed by such cases as R v Austin [1913] 1 KB 551; Page v Winkler (1975) 12 SASR 126, Hoppo v Samuels (1978) 18 SASR 277 and Staska v GMH Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 673 at 675 4Unlik......
  • R. v. Moulton,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
    • 21 September 1977
    ...613; 3 A.R. 181, folld. [para. 9]. R. v. Inhabitants of St. Mary, Whitechapel (1843), 116 E.R. 811, appld. [para. 14]. R. v. Austin, [1913] 1 K.B. 551, appld. [para. Statutes Noticed: Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 236 [paras. 4, 5]; sect. 236.1 [para. 5]. Counsel: Rob......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Male Persons Soliciting or Importuning for Immoral Purposes
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 22-1, January 1949
    • 1 January 1949
    ...is a matter for conjecture.Theconviction preceding the secondor subsequent conviction need not be on indictment (R. v. Austin(1913) 1K.B.551; 77J.P.271).Theindictment may be tried atquarter sessions and the accused may be charged with having com-mitted the offence on one specified day only,......