Teper v The Queen

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1952
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
232 cases
  • Benedetto v The Queen (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 20 October 2003
    ...costs. The second is whether they should be awarded their costs in the courts below as well as before their Lordships' Board. 6 In Teper v The Queen [1952] AC 480, 493 it was said that the practice of the Board was against giving expenses to the successful appellant in a criminal appeal sa......
  • R v Blastland
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 25 July 1985
    ...subject to any test of reliability by cross-examination. As Lord Normand put it, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Lejzor Teper v. The Queen [1952] A.C. 480, 486: "The rule against admission of hearsay evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is not delivere......
  • Connell Richardson Appellant v The Queen Respondent [ECSC]
    • Anguilla
    • Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
    • 9 June 1997
    ...of murder -Directions on what amounts to circumstantial and the manner in which circumstantial evidence should be treated by the jury —Teper v The Queen (1952) AC 480, 489 applied — Whether certain items of evidence of more prejudicial effect than of probative value — Exercise of judge's di......
  • Bernal et Al v Reginam
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 26 January 1996
    ...really no difference, in the manner in which a conclusion of guilt may be drawn from circumstantial evidence. 49 In Teper v. The Queen [1952] A.C. 480 at page 489 Lord Norman in delivering the reasons of the Board stated: “Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive, but it must alw......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Sections
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1976 Preliminary Sections
    • 15 November 2022
    ...1970 1 ALR Comm 423. 392 Taiwo & Ors v. Akinwunmi & Ors (1975) 4 S.C. 143. 341 Tallack v. Tallack (1927) p. 211, 222. 292 Teper v. R (1952) A.C. 480. 670 The Alert (1895) 72 L.T. 124. 244 CASES REFERRED TO IN 1976 The Automatic Telephone & Electric Company Limited v. The Federal Military Go......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 15-4, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    .... . . . . . . . . . . . .355Taylor vKentucky 436 US478 (1978). . . . . . . . 189Tehan vUnites States 382US 406 (1966). . . . . 291Teper vR [1952] AC480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Terry vOhio 392 US1 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308Totalise plc v Motley Fool Ltd [2001]......
  • Athwal and All That: Previous Statements, Narrative, and the Taxonomy of Hearsay
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 74-5, October 2010
    • 1 October 2010
    ...These reasons might be usefully compared with thoseadvanced in support of the hearsay rule in Lord Normand’s classical opinion inTeper vR[1952] AC 480 at 486: ‘The rule against the admission of hearsay evidenceis fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is not delivered on oath. Thet......
  • Evidence 1
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon's Laws of Nigeria. Volume 10. Part I Evidence 1
    • 30 June 2016
    ...must lead conclusively and indisputably to the guilt of the accused person. As Lord Normand has rightly pointed out in R. v. Tepper (1952) A.C. 480 at page 489 - “It must always be narrowly examined, if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another.it is ......
  • 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