R v Cleary

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1963
Year1963
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
11 cases
  • DPP v Ping Lin
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Julio 1975
    ...to make it a conditio sine qua non of the rule, and it would at least seem to be contrary to the decision in Smith [1959] 2 Q.B.35 and Cleary (1963) 48 Cr. App. R.116, unless, of course, to the word "impropriety" is attached a special meaning relevant only to the rule, and signifying simp......
  • Tofilau v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 30 Agosto 2007
    ...person in authority requirement existed 310. Its existence was put beyond doubt in 1852 by R v Moore311 and in 1853 by R v Sleeman312. In R v Cleary313 and R v Wilson314the rule was applied by the English Court of Criminal Appeal. In 1967 the House of Lords refused to accept a requirement s......
  • R v Michael Hickey and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 30 Julio 1997
    ...made was held to be involuntary but another confession several hours later was said to be voluntary. 806 Counsel cited R v Cleary (1963) 48 Cr App R 116, where the conviction was quashed because the issue of voluntariness had not been left to the jury. The confession had followed words spok......
  • Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 Julio 2010
    ...person in authority. Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Aziz bin Syed Mohd Noor [1992] 5 CLAS 10 (“Syed Abdul Aziz”) at 14 and R v Cleary (1963) 48 Cr App R 116 at 119 were cited by Halbury’s as authorities for this proposition. In my view, however, neither of these two cases, properly understo......
  • 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 Diciembre 2012
    ...look to be all investigating officers as far as the accused is concerned. 59PP v Syed Abdul Aziz[1992] 5 CLAS 10 and R v Cleary(1963) 48 Cr App R 116 were both distinguished. 60PP v Lim Boon Hiong[2010] 4 SLR 696 at [47]. 61 This, it is submitted, reflects the reality of interrogation by la......

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