R v Ford; ex parte

The matter before the Court was an appeal against a decision of the District Court of Queensland, concerning the indictment presented against the respondent, Ford. Ford was indicted on nine counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, including one count of permitting a person not an adult to have carnal knowledge of him by anal intercourse, and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 as an alternative to the count of attempted carnal knowledge by anal intercourse of a person not an adult. The complainant was the same in each case. The central issue for the Court was whether an indictment could include counts that were not part of the original six counts on which the respondent had been committed for trial, and which the prosecution sought to add ex officio. The Court was required to determine if these additional counts were permissible under the relevant Queensland legislation.

The Court considered the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Act, and concluded that the additional counts presented in the indictment were not permissible. The Court held that an indictment should only include the counts on which the respondent had been committed for trial, and that the prosecution could not add counts ex officio. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions did not allow for the inclusion of additional counts not included in the original commitment, and that such an action would be an abuse of process. The Court further held that the inclusion of the additional counts in the indictment was a fundamental defect that rendered the entire indictment invalid.

In light of the Court's determination, the questions referred to the Court were answered in the negative. The Court found that the additional counts presented in the indictment were not permissible under the relevant legislation, and that the inclusion of these counts constituted a fundamental defect in the indictment. The Court's decision effectively nullified the indictment against Ford, and the respondent was not required to face the additional charges.