R v Mok Chi Ho
|
[1979] HKLR 118
|
|
Hong Kong
|
circa 1979
|
Westlaw
|
|
14
|
Mansfield v Kelly; Langley v Bull
|
[1972] VicRp 88; [1972] VR 744
|
|
Australia - Victoria
|
28 Apr 1972
|
AustLII
|
|
11
|
R v Holmes
|
3 Car & Kir 360; 21 LT 0; 22 LJMC 122
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1972
|
|
|
11
|
Rex v Wheeler
|
[1945] 1 WWR 61
|
|
Canada
|
circa 1945
|
|
|
1
|
Walker v Crawshaw
|
[1923] NZPoliceLawRp 128
|
New Zealand Police Law Reports
|
New Zealand
|
circa 1923
|
NZLII
|
|
1
|
60 BCR 525 83 CCC 105; [1945] 1 DLR 745
|
60 BCR 525; 83 CCC 105; [1945] 1 DLR 745
|
|
Canada - British Columbia
|
circa 1945
|
|
|
|
But in any event it was not the duty of R to prove a negative, viz , that the motor vehicle was one to which the public did not resort or did not have access; see s 30 (1) of The Summary Convictions Act (and see analogously Rex v Daniels
|
[1942] 1 WWR 43; 77 CCC 76; [1942] 1 DLR 199
|
|
Canada
|
circa 1943
|
|
|
|