翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust ・ R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet ・ R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet (No 2) ・ R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet (No 3) ・ R v Bowden ・ R v Brown ・ R v Bryan ・ R v Brydges ・ R v Buhay ・ R v Burgess ・ R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry ・ R v Burlingham ・ R v Butler ・ R v Béland ・ R v Canadian Dredge & Dock Co ・ R v Carroll ・ R v Carto ・ R v Chaulk ・ R v Chaytor ・ R v Cheshire ・ R v Church of Scientology of Toronto ・ R v Cinous ・ R v Clarke ・ R v Clarkson ・ R v Clay ・ R v Cogdon ・ R v Collins ・ R v Collins (1987) ・ R v Coney ・ R v Constanza Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Carroll ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Carroll ''R v Carroll'' (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 is a decision of the High Court of Australia which unanimously upheld a Queensland appellate court’s decision〔(www.austlii.edu.au )〕 to stay an indictment for perjury as the indictment was found to controvert the respondent’s earlier acquittal for murder. The court held that charging Raymond John Carroll with perjuring himself in the earlier murder trial by swearing he did not kill the baby Deidre Kennedy was tantamount to claiming he had committed the murder and was thus a contravention of the principles of double jeopardy. The case caused widespread public outcry and prompted calls for double jeopardy law reform. ==Background== In October 1983 Carroll was interviewed by the police in relation to the murder of Deidre, a baby whose body had been found on the roof of a toilet block in Ipswich, Queensland, in April 1973. A post-mortem at the time had determined Deidre died of strangulation. During the post-mortem bite marks and bruises were noted on the baby's legs and it was these marks which led police to charge Carroll over the murder, as odontological evidence matched the marks with Carroll's teeth. Carroll was charged with murder. The murder trial started on 18 February 1985. The prosecution's case was that the teeth marks on Deidre's body were made by Carroll, that he had a propensity for biting small children on the legs and that his alibi was false. Carroll claimed he was at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia at the time of Deidre's death. The jury found him guilty of murder, but the conviction was quashed on appeal. The court of appeal found that the prosecution had led no evidence to disprove Carroll's claim that he was not in Ipswich at the time of the death, that the evidence relating to Carroll's propensity to bite children's legs was prejudicial and inadmissible and that a jury must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the odontological evidence presented by the prosecution. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Carroll」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.