Gomes v R
| Jurisdiction | Caribbean States |
| Date | 1963 |
| Court | Obsolete Court (Caribbean) |
-
- 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
6 cases
-
Carter et Al v The State
...upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.” 100 Equally instructive in this regard, is the Australian case of Doney v. R. [1990] 171 C.L.R. 207 at 214, where it was said: “… if there is evidence (even if tenuous or inherently weak or vague) which can be taken i......
-
Yaseen All E.R v The State
... ... App. R. applied. Bishop, J.A ... 1 I concur in the order proposed by the Honourable Chancellor that the appeals should be allowed and a re-trial had. However, I am obliged to comment on the ruling of Bollers, J., as he then was, in R v. Gomes (1962) 5 W.I.R. 7 ... I do so because those who, at times, question the correctness of certain statements made in that judgment seem to have lost sight of, or have been inclined to understate, this important point: that the learned trial judge was required to rule on an objection, by the defence, to ... ...
-
The State v Jeremy (No. 2)
... ... The State (1990) 44 W.I.R. 219 ... it is that in ordinary cases new and additional evidence can be called at the trial if the evidence is relevant and adequate notice was served on the defence. Prior to that, the leading authority was to be found in the judgment of Bolters, J. in R v. Gomes (1962) 5 W.I.R. 7 ... Bishop, J.A. put Games in proper context in a painstaking analysis of the authorities and the prejudicial nature of the similar fact evidence sought to be adduced in Gomes and the rules attendant thereto. 30. On the more recent ... ...
-
The State v Lewis et Al
... ... 6 A statement was recorded from Janelle Littren on the 27 th February 1996, some weeks after the alleged incident. The Legal Position ... 7 In R v Gomes [1962] 5 W.I.R. 7 Bollers J, after an examination of several authorities held that where evidence is available to the prosecution at the time of the preliminary inquiry and is not led, such evidence is admissible at the trial in the supreme court ... 8 Since the decision in ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results