R v Hodge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1838 |
| Year | 1838 |
| Court | Court for Crown Cases Reserved |
-
- 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
27 cases
-
Munib Masri (Applicant/Judgment Creditor) v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and Others (First and Second) (Respondents/Judgment Debtors) (Third Respondent)
...satisfied that the facts are inconsistent with any conclusion other than that the contempt in question has been committed: Hodge'sCase [1838] 2 Lewin 227; and that there are " no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference" of guilt: Teper v The Queen [1952] ......
-
Kea Investments Ltd v Eric John Watson and Others
...satisfied that the facts are inconsistent with any conclusion other than that the contempt in question has been committed: Hodge's Case [1838] 2 Lewin 227; and that there are “no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference” of guilt: Teper v The Queen [1952] ......
-
Tonstate Group Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Edward Wojakovski
...satisfied that the facts are inconsistent with any conclusion other than that the contempt in question has been committed: Hodge's Case [1838] 2 Lewin 227; and that there are “no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference” of guilt: Teper v The Queen [1952] ......
-
The Queen(Appellant) v Kritsingh Dookheea
... ... The Court has also indicated the limited occasions on which, in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, the extended formula proposed by Alderson B in R v Hodge [ (1838) 2 Lewin CC 227 [ 168 ER 1136 ]] should be used: see Grant v The Queen [ (1975) 11 ALR 503 ].’ ... 27 Today, views might reasonably differ as to whether ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is a well-understood expression in ordinary and common use ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results