R v Humphrys

Core Citations

CONSIDERS

• Perjury Act 1911 - Articles : S-11
• Savings Banks (Ireland) Act 1859
• Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933

[See more]

• Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 - Articles : S-2
• Criminal Evidence Act 1898
• Perjury Act 1911
• Interpretation Act 1889 - Articles : S-33
• Vexatious Actions Act 1896
• Army Act 1955 - Articles : S-37
• R v London (County) Quarter Sess. ex parte Downes
• R v Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Chairman)ex parte DPP

REVERSES

• R v Humphrys

CONSIDERS

• R v Maskell
• G. (an Infant) v Coltart
• Mills v Cooper

[See more]

• Birch v Birch
• Birch v Birch
• Mraz v R (No 2)
• R v Thomas
• R v Jones

REFERS TO

• R v Riebold
• R v Thomson Holidays Ltd
• R v Thomas

[See more]

• Kingston's (Duchess of) Case
• Hudson v Hudson
• Sambasivam v Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya
• R v Ollis
• Harriman v Harriman
• Brown v Robinson
• Vadala v Lawes
• Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Company
• H. M. Advocate v Cairns
• Flatman v Light
• Birch v Birch
• Metropolitan Bank v Pooley
• R v Wilkes
• Fidelitas Shipping Company Ltd v V/O Exportchleb
• G. (an Infant) v Coltart

DOES NOT APPLY

• Connelly v DPP

APPLIES

• Mills v Cooper

This document cites

• R v Thomson Holidays Ltd
• R v Humphrys
• Connelly v DPP
• R v Humphrys
• R v Maskell



See all quotations

• Fidelitas Shipping Company Ltd v V/O Exportchleb
• Mills v Cooper
• Birch v Birch
• Harriman v Harriman
• Birch v Birch
• Metropolitan Bank v Pooley
• R v Riebold
• R v Thomas
• R v Ollis
• Birch v Birch
• R v Jones
• R v Hogan
• G. (an Infant) v Coltart
• Kingston's (Duchess of) Case
• R v London (County) Quarter Sess. ex parte Downes
• Brown v Robinson
• Sambasivam v Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya
• R v Wilkes
• Kemp v R
• R v Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Chairman)ex parte DPP
• Flatman v Light
• R v Thomson Holidays Ltd
• Hudson v Hudson
• G. (an Infant) v Coltart
• R v Wilkes
• Mills v Cooper
• R v Thomas
• Mraz v R (No 2)
• Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Company
• Vadala v Lawes