R v Chan

In the matter of the Queen versus Chan, the appellant contested his conviction for a breach of a road rule, specifically rule 287, which pertains to failing to provide particulars when required. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant sought to appeal his conviction, arguing that the particulars provided were inadequate and did not meet the requirements set forth in the legislation. The respondent, the Crown, maintained that the particulars were sufficient and that the appellant's conviction should be upheld.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the particulars provided to the appellant were adequate under the relevant statute. The court was required to consider the statutory language, the purpose of the provision, and the circumstances in which the particulars were given. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the particulars were clear, specific, and sufficient to inform the appellant of the nature of the alleged breach. The appellant argued that the particulars were vague and insufficient, while the Crown contended that they were adequate to inform the appellant of the nature of the alleged breach and to allow for a proper defence.

The court found that the particulars provided were indeed adequate. The language used was clear and specific, and they provided sufficient detail for the appellant to understand the nature of the alleged breach. The court held that the particulars met the requirements of the statute and that there was no error in the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was confirmed. The court emphasised that the particulars must be sufficient to inform the accused of the nature of the alleged breach and to allow for a proper defence. However, the court found that the particulars in this case met these requirements and were therefore adequate.

The court's decision was final, and the conviction was upheld. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was confirmed. The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the statutory language and the circumstances in which the particulars were given. The court found that the particulars provided were clear, specific, and sufficient to inform the appellant of the nature of the alleged breach and to allow for a proper defence. The court's decision is a reminder of the importance of providing adequate particulars in criminal cases and the need for courts to carefully consider the adequacy of particulars in each case.