Clark v R
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] NZCA 641 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- 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
9 cases
-
William Allan Berkland v R
...cases: Whiteford v R [2020] NZCA 130; Roulston v R [2020] NZCA 255; Royal v R [2020] NZCA 129; Joyce v R [2020] NZCA 124; and Clark v R [2020] NZCA 641. 96 R v Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 SCR 433 at [83] per McLachlin CJ, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella 97 Jarden, above n 2. 98 ......
-
Kai Yip Cheung v R
...NZSC 77, [2006] 3 NZLR 145. 55 Chamberlains v Lai, above n 25, at [130]–[131]. 56 Zhang v R, above n 5. 57 See for example Clark v R [2020] NZCA 641 at [26] (filed 21 May 2020); Moheebi v R, above n 14, at [35] (filed 22 August 2018); Gray v R [2020] NZCA 548 at [31] (filed 9 June 2020); Wa......
-
Kai Yip Cheung v R
...it may use the two-step methodology when substituting another sentence.58 56 57 58 Zhang v R, above n 5. See for example Clark v R [2020] NZCA 641 at [26] (filed 21 May 2020); Moheebi v R, above n 14, at [35] (filed 22 August 2018); Gray v R [2020] NZCA 548 at [31] (filed 9 June Waho v R [2......
-
R v Smith & ORS
...role was also deemed to be “significant”, although your charges involve a significantly lower quantity if methamphetamine. Clark v R [2020] NZCA 641: In this case, the quantity of methamphetamine supplied was 720 grams and the defendant’s role was deemed to be significant based on the fact ......
Request a trial to view additional results