R v Rand

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench
Date1865
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
59 cases
  • R v Barnsley Licensing Justices. ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers' Association
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 Mayo 1960
    ...having that kind of interest, they would fall within the scope of the principle laid down In 1866 by Mr. Justice Blackburn in The Queen v. Rand and others. Law Reports, 1 Queen's Bench cases, page 230, which Mr. Humphreys has put in the forefront of his 7The facts in Rand's case need not be......
  • Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v Yong Liuk Thin CA
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Chua Beow Huat v PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1970
  • Drew v Attorney General
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 6 Septiembre 1988
    ...Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice, 42nd ed., June 1986 Supplement, para. S-15, at 11, considered. (10) R. v. Rand (1866), L.R. 1 Q.B. 230; 7 B. & S. 297; 35 L.J.M.C. 157; 30 J.P. Jo. 293, followed. Texts cited: Le Geyt, Code des Lois, Titre IV, arts. 1 & 4. Le Geyt, 4 Manuscr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Sub-regional Courts and the Recusal Issue: Emergent Practice of the East African Court of Justice
    • United Kingdom
    • African Journal of International and Comparative Law Nbr. , October 2012
    • 1 Octubre 2012
    ...This was originally an immutable principle, such that any direct financial interest, ‘however small’,1414See Blackburn J in R v Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, 232; Slade J in R v Camborne Justices ex p Pearce [1955] 1 QB 41, 47. attracted disqualification. However, de minimis financial interests ......
  • Judicial Bias and Disqualification after Pinochet (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 63-1, January 2000
    • 1 Enero 2000
    ...[1924] KB 256, 259.7 See the observation of Lord Widgery CJ in RvAltrincham Justices, ex parte Pennington [1975] 1 QB549, 552.8RvRand (1866) LR 1 QB 230; London and North-Western Railway Co vLindsay (1858) 3 Macq 99,Sellar vHighland Railway Co 1991 SC (HL) 19.The Modern Law Review [Vol. 631......
  • SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL LECTURE 2004: IMPARTIALITY IN JUDGING AND THE PASSIONS OF MANKIND
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...(Great Britain), Limited [1916] 2 AC 307. 13 Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal [1852] 3 HL Cas 759; 10 ER 301. R v Rand(1866) LR 1 QB 230 at 232 per Blackburn J. 14 Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the Third (15th Ed, 1809) at p 361. 15 [1993] AC 6......

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