R v B

[2001] QCA 65

[2001] QCA 65

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
MACKENZIE J

CA No 241 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

B  Respondent

and

EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF QUEENSLAND  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/02/2001

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  This matter was heard by a Court consisting of the President, Mr Justice Williams and Mr Justice Mackenzie.  In answer to the Attorney-General's reference question, "Can specifying an alleged act as the first occasion when conduct of a certain type was committed be sufficiently particular to identify the offence charged?"

An accused person is entitled to be sufficiently apprised of the particular occasion referred to in a charge against him.  When it is alleged that a series of acts of a similar character was committed it is necessary to have regard to all relevant circumstances in deciding whether the accused person's right to be adequately apprised of the occasion to which the count relates has been satisfied.

The utility of describing the charge as the "first occasion", when such particularisation is given as a step towards attempting to ensure that the accused's right has been accorded to him, will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

In the absence of any objective fact or event to which the charged event can be related, reliance only on that identifying feature in a case where the offence was one of a number which allegedly occurred in the distant past and the period in which it was alleged to have occurred is lengthy, will ordinarily mean that there is insufficient compliance with what is required for the purposes of proper administration of justice.

I publish the separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court concurring as to that answer.

-----