Hayes v Kenning

The Supreme Court of South Australia dealt with an appeal by Kenning against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appeal centred on whether there was a variance between the particulars of the charge provided by the prosecution and the evidence presented at trial, which could have prejudiced the defendant. The appellant argued that the evidence did not support the charge as particularised by the prosecution, as the assault did not occur while the police officer was assisting in the arrest of Eades, as stated in the particulars.

The court considered the role of particulars in summary trials, emphasising their importance in ensuring the accused understands the precise nature of the charges against them. The court noted that while particulars should accurately reflect the prosecution's case, discrepancies between particulars and evidence do not necessarily result in an acquittal. The court must instead assess whether any variance has caused unfairness or prejudice to the defendant, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.

In this case, the court found the variance between the particulars and the evidence to be minor. The assault occurred almost immediately after the police officer turned from assisting in the arrest of Eades, and the sequence of events was clear. The court held that the particulars did not mislead the appellant regarding the incident in question, and therefore, the conviction should stand. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the appellant's conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty.