R v Cleary
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Date | 1963 |
Year | 1963 |
Court | Court 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
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
11 cases
-
DPP v Ping Lin
...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
...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
...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
...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
...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......