R v Norman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1915 |
| Date | 1915 |
| Court | Court of 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
14 cases
-
R v Ludlow
...not be unreasonable for the defendant to make an application that each count for each set of counts should be taken separately." 12In R. v. Norman [1915] 1 K.B. 341 at page 343 Lush J. said: "In cases of this kind, where there are several counts and several transactions, in order that the ......
- R v Johnson (Harold Robert)
-
Spies v R
...hand and ‘deceiving’ on the other” (Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions)95, and have been cited with apparent approval in this Court (R v Kidman)96’. 77 Cases decided subsequently to Balcombe v De Simoni have shown, however, that there may be a conspiracy to defraud without deceit 97. ......
-
R v Charles
...in question had not been argued. Another instance of the same process is to be found in the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Norman (1924) 2 King's Bench 315, where, confronted with a previous decision where a point not argued had been decided in a certain way, Lord Hewart,......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
ENLARGED PANELS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SINGAPORE
...R v Machardy [1911] 2 KB 1144; R v Hudson [1912] 2 KB 464; Hunt v Richardson [1916] 2 KB 446; Oaten v Auty [1919] 2 KB 278; R v Norman [1924] 2 KB 315; R v Chapman [1931] 2 KB 606; King v King [1943] P 91; R v Turner [1944] KB 463; Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718; Bracegirdle......
-
THE SUPER PANEL DOCTRINE.
...panel that divided 2:1 so long as the decision to do so is unanimous. Such reasoning is not found in the super panel doctrine. (115) [1924] 2 KB 315; [1924] 5 WLUK (116) At the time, the English Court of Criminal Appeal did not have a fixed membership. Every judge in the King's Bench Divisi......
-
Precedent
...firstoccasion on which the Court had overruled a previous decision (seeR. v. Power [1919] 1 K.B. 572, a court of five, and R. v. Norman[1924] 2 K.B. 315,a court of 13Judges), but it was the first time it hadexplicitly stated so in the judgment.Itwould appear, therefore, in practice, that de......