Dendy v Brinkworth

Dendy and Brinkworth were charged on three complaints alleging breaches of the Native Vegetation Act 1981 (SA). The respondents argued before the magistrate that the counts on two of the complaints were bad for duplicity. The counts alleged that the respondents had cleared native vegetation from several discrete sites on their land. The magistrate found the counts to be bad for duplicity, and the Crown appealed against this finding. The appeal raised the question of whether the magistrate had erred in finding the counts bad for duplicity.

The court considered the issue of duplicity and whether the counts should have been consolidated. The court noted that the act of clearing native vegetation from multiple discrete sites could be considered a continuing offence. The court held that the appellant was entitled to charge the respondents for clearing discrete sites of land in a single count. The court found that the magistrate had erred in finding the counts bad for duplicity and allowed the appeal.

The court found that the act of clearing vegetation from multiple discrete sites constituted a single continuing offence. Therefore, the counts could be properly consolidated in a single charge. The court held that the magistrate had erred in finding the counts bad for duplicity, and the appeal was allowed. The court's decision clarified the law regarding duplicity and continuing offences in the context of charges under the Native Vegetation Act 1981 (SA).