Pinpoint · Judgment search

R v Hay; R v Cross

[2023] NSWDC 234

District Court of NSW · 29 June 2023 · 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 (7)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Cited cited 1,170×
  2. Siddiqi v Regina (Commonwealth) [2015] NSWCCA 169 Cited cited 6×
  3. Dunning v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 21 Cited cited 3×
  4. Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207 Cited cited 56×
  5. Robson-Bolan v R [2022] NSWCCA 1 Cited cited 3×
  6. Hanna v R [2022] NSWCCA 7 Cited cited 8×
  7. Huynh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 49 Cited
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.