Director of Public Prosecutions v Offe
[2025] ACTSC 371
•21 August 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Offe |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 371 |
Hearing Date: | 21 August 2025 |
Decision Date: | 21 August 2025 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [11] |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL LAW – Particularisation of charges – application to stay or dismiss indictment for want of particulars – court order to provide particulars has been complied with, and did not require amendment of indictment – additional particulars provided in response to request are adequate to allow the accused to know the case to be met – other grounds insufficient to warrant a stay or adjournment of the trial |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 29A(1), 160 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act1991 (ACT), s 32 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Paul Offe ( Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel M Howe ( DPP) Self-represented ( Accused) |
| Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions Self-represented ( Accused) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 191 of 2022 SCC 192 of 2022 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
At the request of the prosecution, on Monday I listed these proceedings for directions this morning. It is now Thursday, and a jury trial is due to commence this coming Monday. Although the estimates of the parties as to the length of the trial have differed, it is presently listed for four weeks. Following the listing of the matter for directions, Mr Offe filed an application in proceeding yesterday.
The present application
The application contends that the indictment should be stayed or dismissed or that the prosecution should be directed to file and serve a fresh indictment and the trial adjourned. It also seeks that particulars be provided in relation to the transfer charges of aggravated dangerous driving, contravening a police direction, failing to stop and resisting a Territory official.
The affidavit in support of the application indicates that the accused has been served with an indictment dated 26 September 2022. It says:
I have had several legal representatives and the underpinning issues that I have constantly faced in all these proceedings is that I have run out of funding on occasions and ethical disputes, or in the case of Legal Aid, disagreed with the manner in which my matter was being run by them or how they felt I should agree to have my matter run in the Court.
The affidavit asserts that the indictment fails to disclose sufficient material particulars to allow the accused to prepare his case. It refers to correspondence from the prosecution indicating that the prosecution does not intend to amend the indictment.
The written submissions
The accused provided written submissions earlier today. Those written submissions raised matters going well beyond those which were raised in his application in proceeding. I will treat those matters as having been raised orally as grounds for the adjournment of the trial. He sought an adjournment on the grounds of:
(a)Loss of representation: The submissions noted that, on 11 July 2025, I granted leave for the accused’s former solicitors to cease acting. The accused alleged that, despite a written request made on 23 July 2025 and an undertaking by his solicitors to deliver a complete client file to any new legal representative, the file has not been delivered to him. There is no evidence in support of this submission.
(b)Outstanding disclosure: The accused alleged that the Director has failed to comply with her obligations of disclosure. In particular, a request for additional disclosure was made on 24 December 2024 and responded to on 23 January 2025, but a number of the requested categories of documents are said not to have been provided. The accused declined in the course of submissions to identify which particular categories he said were outstanding, and I have treated him as asserting that all of the categories referred to in correspondence are required to be disclosed and remain outstanding. Given the very late notice of these allegations, I am not attempting to deal with this issue to finality and have listed the matter tomorrow morning to address it.
(c)Failure to comply with a court order for particulars: The submissions stated that, on 25 July 2025, I “ordered the DPP to provide Further and Better Particulars by way of amendment to the indictment” and that no such amendment has been made. That is an incorrect statement of the order that I made. The order that I made was that the Director provide particulars responding to paras (1)(a)-(e) of the application in proceeding dated 20 July 2025. Those particulars related to the charge of escaping from arrest under s 160 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). There was no requirement to file any amended indictment or, given that this is a transfer charge not included on the indictment, to amend the charge. The evidence discloses that the particulars of the s 160 charge were provided on the day of the order, 25 July 2025.
(d)Defective audiovisual link application: The accused identified that, on 18 August 2025, the Director wrote to him advising that one of the witnesses was to give evidence by audiovisual link, but the Director had not served a sealed application in proceeding on the accused. This relates to an application by the prosecution pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act1991 (ACT) to permit a police officer who is presently stationed on Norfolk Island to give evidence by audiovisual link. The application was filed in court this morning and, having explained to the accused the terms of s 32, I indicated that I would deal with the application on the first day of the hearing, giving him more time to consider the application and his position.
(e)Improper listing: The accused alleged that it was improper for the proceedings to be listed for a directions hearing in circumstances where no application in proceeding had been filed. The application was listed for directions following a request for such a listing by counsel for the prosecution. Although the specific issues to be addressed were not identified either in that request or when I decided to list the matter, each of the matters that the prosecution wished to raise was a matter that it was appropriate to raise without the need for the filing of an application in proceeding. The matters addressed by the prosecutor were:
(i)making sure that the accused understood the distinction between the charges on the indictment, which would be determined by the jury, and the charges that were transfer charges, which would be determined by the judge;
(ii)identifying that a witness list and a list of proposed exhibits had been sent to the accused earlier this week and giving him the opportunity, if he wished, to raise any issue about the persons on the witness list, in particular, whether there were any additional prosecution witnesses which he required to be called;
(iii)having regard to the prosecution’s estimate that its evidence would be complete within two days, giving the accused an opportunity to provide a revised estimate of the length of the trial, given that it is presently listed for four weeks; and
(iv)identifying that there was to be an application to allow one of the prosecution’s proposed witnesses to give evidence by audiovisual link.
In circumstances where the accused remains unrepresented, addressing each of these matters in court, in the presence of the judge, but without the filing and service of an application in proceeding, was appropriate.
Decision
The issue of prosecution disclosure remains outstanding. The balance of the matters raised in the application in proceeding or otherwise referred to in the submissions made by the accused do not warrant the making of any orders. In particular, they do not warrant the stay or adjournment of the proceedings.
So far as the indictment is concerned, it alleges two charges that the accused drove a motor vehicle near or at named police officers, each of whom was exercising a function given to him as a police officer, and that the accused knew or was reckless about whether the police officers were police officers, and intended to or was reckless about risking the safety of the police officers. The formulation of the charges on the indictment includes allegations that correspond to each of the paragraphs of s 29A(1) of the Crimes Act and is adequate to allege offences under that provision. There is no basis to direct the filing of a fresh indictment or further particulars.
So far as the requirement to particularise the four transfer charges referred to in the application is concerned, the position is as follows. As already noted, pursuant to the order made on 25 July 2025 particulars were provided of the s 160 charge on that day. On 28 July 2025, a further request for particulars of four other transfer charges was made, and those particulars were provided by return email on that day. No complaint either in correspondence or submissions has been made about the adequacy of the particulars provided. They are adequate to allow the accused to know the case he has to meet. It is not appropriate to make a further order.
So far as the additional matters raised in written submissions but not in the application itself are concerned, leaving aside the issue of disclosure, for the reasons I have outlined earlier in describing each matter, I do not consider that there is any basis to stay or adjourn the trial or to make any other order in the circumstances.
As a consequence, I dismiss the application in proceeding dated 18 August 2025 and filed on 20 August 2025. It is appropriate to take that course because any complaint about a failure by the prosecution to comply with its disclosure obligations is not addressed in the application. As I have indicated, I will address the allegations of prosecution nondisclosure as an oral application made by the accused tomorrow, when the prosecutor has had an opportunity to investigate that issue.
Orders
The orders of the Court are:
(1)The application in proceeding dated 18 August 2025 and filed on 20 August 2025, and the oral applications relating to loss of legal representation, failure to comply with orders for particulars, defective AVL application and improper listing, are dismissed.
(2)The listing at 9am on 22 August 2025 to determine the accused’s oral application relating to disclosure remains.
I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop.
Associate:
Date:
0
0
2