| dbo:abstract
|
- Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22, 141 CLR 54 (HCA), is an Australian evidence law case, in which the admissibility of improperly gained evidence is examined. Like the similar R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, Bunning v Cross, the ruling of the High Court of Australia has been formulated as an exclusionary rule, namely the onus is on the accused to prove the misconduct and justify exclusion, and is known as the Bunning discretion (cf. Ireland discretion). (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 5204 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:citations
|
- [1978] HCA 22 141 CLR 54 (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:judges
|
- Barwick CJ, Stephen, Jacobs, Murphy & Aickin JJ (en)
|
| dbp:keywords
|
- Admissibility of evidence, improperly or illegally obtained evidence (en)
|
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:opinions
|
- Improperly or illegally obtained does not inherently render it inadmissible; however, it confers upon a judge a discretion to reject it . (en)
|
| dbp:subsequentActions
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22, 141 CLR 54 (HCA), is an Australian evidence law case, in which the admissibility of improperly gained evidence is examined. Like the similar R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, Bunning v Cross, the ruling of the High Court of Australia has been formulated as an exclusionary rule, namely the onus is on the accused to prove the misconduct and justify exclusion, and is known as the Bunning discretion (cf. Ireland discretion). (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
