R v Lobell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1957
Date1957
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
80 cases
  • R v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Justices, ex parte Hindle
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • Looi Wooi Saik v Public Prosecutor
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • R. v. Cinous (J.), (2002) 285 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 21 Marzo 2002
    ...1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 145]. Holmes v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1946] A.C. 588 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 145]. R. v. Lobell, [1957] 1 Q.B. 547 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 146]. R. v. Latour, [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 147]. R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199, r......
  • Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 Julio 2006
    ...to the person and battery is an example of a trespass to the person. So too does Goddard LJ in Dumbell v Roberts at page 331 and in R v Lobell [1957] 1 QB 547. 23 The proposition that in tort the burden of proving self-defence, including the allegation that the force used was reasonable, is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1964 Preliminary Sections
    • 11 Noviembre 2022
    ...(1961) All N L R 25 15 R. v. Walton and Ogden (1863) 9 Cox C.C. 268; (C.C.C.R.) 83 Reg. v. Rivetts, 34 Cr. App. R.87, 94. 146 R. Lobell (1957) 1 Q.B. 547, 551. 288 Reed v. Cattermole (1937) 1 K.B. (C.A.) 613; (1936) 2 K.B. 645; (1937) All E R 541 46 Reeves v. Deane-Freeman (1953) 1 Q.B.D. 4......
  • Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 10-4, July 2006
    • 1 Julio 2006
    ...vehicle, which carries a possible prisonsentence.75 Above n. 12.76 See decisions such as RvMancini [1942] AC 1 (provocation), RvLobell [1957] 1 QB 547 (self-defence),and RvGill [1963] 1 WLR 841 (duress).77 See T. H. Jones, ‘Insanity, Automatism, and the Burden of Proof on the Accused’ (1995......
  • A Different Ball Game—Why the Nature of Consent in Contact Sports Undermines a Unitary Approach
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 71-6, December 2007
    • 1 Diciembre 2007
    ...(A. Lewis andJ. Taylor, Sport: Law and Practice (Butterworths: London, 2003) 1081–2).28 Mancini v DPP [1942] AC 1.29 Rv Lobell [1957] 1 QB 547.30 As held in Woolmingtonv DPP [1935] AC 462, the burden of proving everyelement of a criminal offence falls on the prosecution, absent the presumpt......
  • Defenceless Castles
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 80-6, December 2016
    • 1 Diciembre 2016
    ...particular discussion. 4. Its relevance can, of course, be questioned in practice as a result of the decision in R v Duffy [1967] 1 QB 63 (CCA), in which, despite the enactment of the 1967 Act, the courts continued to talk in terms of the common law rules. 5. Criminal Justice and Immigratio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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