Teper v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1952 |
| Year | 1952 |
| Court | Privy Council |
-
- 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
232 cases
-
Benedetto v The Queen (No 2)
...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
...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]
...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
...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
17 books & journal articles
-
Preliminary Sections
...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
.... . . . . . . . . . . . .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
...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
...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