About: Cesan v The Queen     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/3tCvj2Zkok

Cesan v The Queen was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 3 September 2008 quashing the convictions of two men for conspiring to import a commercial quantity of narcotics because the trial judge was asleep during parts of the trial. The Court subsequently delivered reasons for its decision on 6 November 2008.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Cesan v The Queen (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Cesan v The Queen was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 3 September 2008 quashing the convictions of two men for conspiring to import a commercial quantity of narcotics because the trial judge was asleep during parts of the trial. The Court subsequently delivered reasons for its decision on 6 November 2008. (en)
name
  • Cesan v The Queen (en)
foaf:depiction
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
transcripts
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
thumbnail
court
full name
  • Cesan v The Queen; Mas Rivadavia v The Queen (en)
judges
  • French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Kiefel JJ (en)
has abstract
  • Cesan v The Queen was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 3 September 2008 quashing the convictions of two men for conspiring to import a commercial quantity of narcotics because the trial judge was asleep during parts of the trial. The Court subsequently delivered reasons for its decision on 6 November 2008. The appellants were convicted in the District Court of New South Wales of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of the drug ecstasy. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, it was alleged that the trial judge had been asleep during some parts of the trial when evidence was being given. While the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the judge "was nodding off and on occasion actually asleep from time to time during the trial", it said that this did not necessarily mean that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Court held (by a 2:1 majority) that "there was no failure of process of such a kind as to make it impossible for the Court to decide that the convictions were just" and accordingly upheld the convictions. The High Court granted the appellants special leave to appeal on 16 May 2008. The appeal was heard before the Full Court on 3 September 2008 which gave orders allowing the appeals, quashing the convictions and remitting the cases for retrials. The Court indicated that it would publish its reasons at a later date. (en)
date decided
gold:hypernym
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3332 as of Dec 5 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 76 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software