JUDGMENTBY: TERRELL, AG CJ, CUSSEN, J

TERRELL, AG CJ The facts and relevant sections are sufficiently set out in the Judgment of Cussen J. which I have had the advantage of reading, and with which I respectfully agree, and it is only necessary for me to refer to some of the authorities.

There are two points that arise on this appeal, (1) whether the charge is bad for duplicity, and (2) if there was duplicity, is that an irregularity which can be cured under section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or is it an illegality which can only result in the conviction being quashed.

As regards duplicity, the leading English authority on the subject is the case of Charles Wilmot 24 CrAR, p 63 where the Lord Chief Justice quotes with approval the following passage from the judgment of Avory J. in Rex v Surrey Justices ex parte Witherick (1932) 1 KB p 450 at p 452:

"It is an elementary principle that an information must not charge

offences in the alternative, since the defendant cannot then know with

precision with what he is charged, and of what he is convicted, and may

be prevented on a future occasion from pleading autrefois convict."

The learned Judge is of c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document