R v Oliva
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1960 |
| Date | 1960 |
| 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
27 cases
-
R v Edwards
...did not submit that there was any such absolute rule. With this we agree. At one time we were troubled by the decision of this Court in R. v. Oliva, (1960) 46 Cr. App. R. 241, which appeared to indicate that where there had been a failure to direct the jury on the burden of proof, though no......
-
R v Richardson
... ... 16 We were referred to cases concerning witnesses on the back of the indictment, witnesses whose evidence has been served as part of the prosecution case. In regard to such witnesses, the position is stated by Lord Parker CJ in Oliva (1965) 49 Cr App R 298 at page 309 as follows: "The prosecution must of course have in court the witnesses whose names are on the back of the indictment, but there is a wide discretion in the prosecution whether they should call them either calling and examining them, or calling and ... ...
-
R v Cavanagh
...to proceed in the absence of Bhatanagar. That submission is based primarily on the judgment of this Court in R. v. Oliva, 49 Criminal Appeal Reports 298. At page 309 of that report Lord Parker, Lord Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said this: "Accordingly, as it seem......
-
R v Haringey Justices, ex parte DPP
...the duty of the prosecutor to call witnesses in the Magistrates' Court. The position in the Crown Court is however now well established. In Oliva [1965] 49 CAR 298 Lord Parker CJ said at p. 309: "the principles are plain. The prosecution must of course have in court the witnesses whose name......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Best evidence or best interests? What does the case law say about the function of criminal cross-examination?
...356, distinguished in HvR, n. 9 at [68], the Court of Appealstating they did ‘not find the decision of any real value’.85. RvOliva (1965) 49 Cr App R 298 at 309. See subsequently RvHaringey Justices, ex pte DPP (1996) QB 351; RvWell-ingborough JJ ex pte Francois (1994) 158 JP 813; RvRichard......