Gokool and Gokool v R
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Date | 1968 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
Dick et Al v R
...being an accomplice, merely because it may be said the witness has “some interest of his own to serve.” See: Gookool & Gookool v. R. (1968) 13 W.I.R. 477. I say the same, here. The contention is without substance. 58 A complaint made, on behalf of the No. 2 appellant, was that the learned t......
-
R v Henrigues et Al
...an accomplice merely because it may be said that they witness has some interest of his own to serve' — dictum of Phillips, J.A. in Gokool & Gokool v. R. (1968) 13 W.I.R. 477 applied and followed (2) that the evidence of the witness did not require corroboration.” 47 Fraser, J.A., in deliver......
-
Singh et Al v R
...force of a rule of law but in the latter it has not. (See in this connexion R v Stannard (1965) 48 Cr. App. R. 81, 91 per Winn, J. and Gokool & Gokool v R (1968) 13 W. I. R. 477, 480-1) in the absence of the necessary warning therefore in the former case, the third proposition of Lord Simon......
-
Outridge v The State
...own to serve and referred to a number of cases of which I will now myself refer to only two. The first is R. v. Gokool and Gokool, (1968) 13 W.I.R. 477, 481, where the Trinidad and Tobago Court of appeal spoke as follows: “This court is of the view that in the present state of the law ther......
Request a trial to view additional results