R v Hansen

JurisdictionNew Zealand
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date2007
Neutral Citation[2007] NZSC 7
Date2007
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
134 cases
  • Ministry of Health v Peter Atkinson (on Behalf of The Estate of Susan Atkinson)
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 14 May 2012
    ...36 At [137]. 37 At [133]. 38 At [133]. 39 High Court judgment at [134] and see discussion below at [138]. 40 At [134]. 41 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 1 at [104]. 42 At [218]. 43 At [157]. 44 For ease of reference we will refer only to differential treatment. 45 Robert Walker “T......
  • Attorney General v Taylor and Others
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 9 November 2018
    ...process that legislation is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The classic illustration of this is provided by this Court's decision in R v Hansen which found that the reverse onus presumption of supply in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, applying to those in possession of controlled drugs ......
  • Taylor v Attorney-General of New Zealand
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 24 July 2015
    ...of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill (17 March 2010) at para 16. 39 Section 5 is set out at para [38] below. 40 R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 41 Christopher Finlayson Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electoral (Disqualification......
  • New Health New Zealand Inc. v South Taranaki District Council and another
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 27 June 2018
    ...whether the discrimination – or in the present case compulsory medical treatment – is justified in a free and democratic society). In R v Hansen, the Chief Justice said interpretation of the scope of rights under the Bill of Rights Act and the question of justification under s 5 should be k......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Courts invited to speak up on rights
    • New Zealand
    • Mondaq New Zealand
    • 3 March 2018
    ...[2017] NZCA 215; [2017] 3 NZLR 24 at [162]. 4 Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 (CA) at [20]; R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7 [2007] 3 NZLR 1 at [253]. See also R v Poumako [2000] 2 NZLR 692 (CA) at [99]; and Quilter v Attorney-General [1998] 1 NZLR 523 (CA) per Thomas J......
6 books & journal articles
  • Authenticating ‘Things’ in English Law: Principles for Adducing Tangible Evidence in Common Law Jury Trials
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 12-4, November 2008
    • 1 November 2008
    ...established beyond reasonable doubt inCanada: RvAdam [2006] BCSC 1430 at [25]–[26].76 The arguments for presuming innocence (see Hansen vR[2007] NZSC 7 at [196]–[198]) have noapplication unless admission of the evidence has a conclusive effect with respect to guilt. For acritique of the sta......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 11-4, October 2007
    • 1 October 2007
    ...JC 190, HCJ . . . 115Hamilton v General Manufacturing Co. [2000]OJ No 1636, Gen Div . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7 . . . . . . . . 221, 223, 228Harris v DPP [1952] AC 694. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Hasson v HMA 1971 SLT 199 . . . . . . . . . . 160, ......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 12-4, November 2008
    • 1 November 2008
    ...No. IT-01-47) Decision onAdmissibility of Documents of the Defenceof Enver Hadžihasanović, 22June 2005 . . . 18Hansen vR [2007] NZSC7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281Harrison v State, 644 NE 2d 1243 (1995),Supreme Courtof Indiana. . . . . 196–197, 198Heaney vIreland [1994] 3IR 593 . . ......
  • Noticeboard
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 11-3, July 2007
    • 1 July 2007
    ...(pre-2005) or ‘presumed’ (post-2005) to possess it for the purpose of saleor supply ‘until the contrary is proved’. In Hansen vR[2007] NZSC 7 the appellantcontended, contrary to the long-standing view of the New Zealand courts, thatproving the contrary means raising a reasonable doubt that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT