R v B Summary | CaseChat AU

[2001] QCA 65

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
MACKENZIE J

CA No 241 of 2000

THE QUEEN

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.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in R v B dealt with a question posed by the Attorney-General regarding the sufficiency of particularising an alleged act as the first instance of a series of similar offences. The respondent, B, was accused of an offence, and the central issue before the Court was whether identifying the offence as the "first occasion" when conduct of a certain type was committed met the legal requirement of specificity. The case was heard by President Mr Justice Williams and Mr Justice Mackenzie.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the accused's right to be adequately apprised of the specific occasion referred to in the charge was fulfilled when the offence was described as the first occurrence of a series of similar acts. The Court needed to determine whether such particularisation, in the absence of any objective fact or event to which the charged event could be related, was sufficient to comply with the principles of justice.

The Court held that the accused is entitled to be sufficiently apprised of the specific occasion referred to in a charge against them. When multiple acts of a similar character are alleged, the Court must consider all relevant circumstances to determine whether the accused's right to proper notification has been satisfied. The Court found that while describing the charge as the "first occasion" could be useful in certain contexts, its effectiveness depends on the specific circumstances of the case. In cases where the offence was one of many allegedly occurring in the distant past, and the period in which it was alleged to have occurred is lengthy, simply identifying it as the first occasion is often insufficient. The Court concluded that the accused's right to be adequately apprised of the occasion to which the count relates had not been satisfied in this instance.

The Court published the separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, all concurring with the conclusion that specifying an alleged act as the first occasion was not sufficiently particular to identify the offence charged.

R v B

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established