Nunn v Pezzimenti

The applicant, Nunn, sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, which involved two charges related to drug driving. The charges were that the applicant drove with a prescribed concentration of a drug in their oral fluid and provided a blood sample that tested positive for a drug within three hours of driving. The drug was not named in either charge. The legal issues that arose for determination were whether the particulars of both charges were sufficient, whether the second charge was invalid for duplicity because of the inclusion of the words “or in charge of”, and whether the magistrate had the power to amend charges after the expiration of the limitation period.

The court held that the particulars of both charges were valid, but the magistrate had the power to amend them. The court found that the magistrate did not exceed their jurisdiction by amending the charges to include the name of the drug (methylamphetamine) and deleting the words “or in charge of” from the second charge. The court also held that the amendment did not affect the applicant’s rights to a fair hearing or the principle of legality. The court relied on several cases, including Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Glenister, DPP v Fox, and Johnson v Miller, to support its reasoning.

The court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review and affirmed the magistrate’s decision to amend the charges. The court did not make any orders for costs. The court found that the magistrate had the power to amend the charges even after the expiration of the limitation period because the amendment was procedural and did not alter the substance of the charges. The court also found that the inclusion of the words “or in charge of” in the second charge did not render it invalid for duplicity because it did not create confusion or ambiguity in the particulars.