Pinpoint · Judgment search

O’Neill v Chief of Army

[2017] ADFDAT 6

Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal · 3 November 2017 · Official judgment

Cited by 0 indexed judgments

No indexed judgment cites this case yet.

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Authorities cited (33)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 Cited cited 5×
  2. R v Yates [1970] SASR 302 Cited
  3. Southwark London Borough Council v Williams [1971] Ch 734 Cited cited 3×
  4. Groves v Commonwealth [1982] HCA 21 Cited cited 28×
  5. Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [1987] HCA 26 Cited cited 75×
  6. Re Tracey; Ex parte Ryan [1989] HCA 12 Cited cited 68×
  7. Dziduch v The Queen [1990] 47 A Crim R 378 Cited
  8. R v Conlon (1993) 69 A Crim R 92 Cited cited 17×
  9. R v Conlon [1993] 69 A Crim R 92 Cited cited 2×
  10. R v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294 Cited cited 12×
  11. M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63 Cited cited 970×
  12. R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528 Cited cited 15×
  13. Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68 Applied or followed cited 328×
  14. MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53 Cited cited 513×
  15. Re Colonel Aird; Ex parte Alpert [2004] HCA 44 Cited cited 19×
  16. Fulton v Chief of Army [2005] ADFDAT 1 Cited cited 4×
  17. R v Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16 Cited cited 2×
  18. AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8 Applied or followed cited 112×
  19. Millar v Bornholt [2009] FCA 637 Cited cited 11×
  20. Dal Cortivo v The Queen [2010] ACTCA 14 Cited
  21. Davis v Chief of Army [2011] ADFDAT 1 Cited cited 4×
  22. SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13 Cited cited 428×
  23. Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 Cited cited 52×
  24. R v Forsyth [2013] ACTSC 174 Cited
  25. Burkhart v Bradley [2013] NTCA 5 Cited
  26. W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110 Cited cited 28×
  27. R v Hall [2015] ACTSC 408 Cited
  28. Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29 Cited cited 283×
  29. Lin v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 13 Cited cited 10×
  30. Miller v The Queen [2016] HCA 30 Cited cited 34×
  31. Harafias v R [2016] NSWCCA 268 Cited cited 2×
  32. Angre v Chief of Navy (No 3) [2017] ADFDAT 2 Cited cited 8×
  33. Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40 Cited cited 15×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.