R v DANIEL JOHN GOODWIN [2009] ACTSC 111 (3 September 2009)
CRIMINAL LAW – indictments – patent and latent duplicity – suggested tests – considerations – fairness to the accused, orderly administration of justice – exceptions to the rule – continuing offences – indicia – proximity in time, space and acts – question of legislative interpretation of offence. CRIMINAL LAW – alleged benefit tending to influence Commonwealth public official – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 142.1 – definition of a ‘benefit’ – provision of paint a ‘continuing offence’ – ‘other services’ distinct in time, space and acts – indictment bad for duplicity. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – case statements – nature, purpose and genesis.
Supreme Court Rules 1938 (ACT), O 80 Div 7 r 20 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 4733
Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Working Group on Criminal Trial Procedure, Report (September 1999) Conference of Directors of Public Prosecutions and National Legal Aid, Best Practice Model for the Determination of Indictable Charges (August 1998) Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Deliberative Forum on Criminal Trial Reform, Report (June 2000) Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, Report - Model Criminal Code, ‘Theft Fraud Bribery and Related Offences’ (1995)
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Goodwin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Goodwin [2009] ACTSC 111
Case
[2009] ACTSC 111
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Goodwin involved the defendant, Goodwin, who was charged under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The charges related to allegations of providing a benefit to a Commonwealth public official, which was a contravention of section 142.1 of the Act. The original indictment included multiple counts of providing paint and other services, which led to an argument regarding the duplicity of the indictment. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the indictment and whether it was patently or latently duplicitous.
The court had to decide whether the indictment was duplicitous, which would render it invalid. The primary issue was whether the indictment was patently duplicitous, meaning that it was clear on its face that it charged more than one offence in a single count. Alternatively, the court had to determine if the indictment was latently duplicitous, where it was not immediately apparent that multiple offences were being charged but could be inferred upon closer examination. Additionally, the court considered whether the indictment could be amended to correct any identified issues.
The court found that the indictment was indeed latently duplicitous due to the inclusion of both paint and other services in the same count. The court established that a continuing offence, such as the provision of paint, could not be combined with other distinct services in the same count without leading to confusion or unfairness to the accused. The court also noted that the definition of 'benefit' under section 142.1 did not encompass 'other services', which were distinct in terms of time, space, and acts. Consequently, the court held that the indictment was bad for latent duplicity. However, the court granted the prosecution leave to amend the indictment to correct these issues.
The court ordered that the prosecution be allowed to amend the indictment to omit the words 'and other services' and to add another consent on counts if necessary. The prosecution was given 14 days to file an amended indictment. Furthermore, if the amended indictment included charges under section 142.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the prosecution was required to provide particulars of the benefit alleged to have been provided and the dishonesty alleged in respect of each count. This ruling aimed to ensure the indictment was clear, fair to the accused, and conducive to the orderly administration of justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The prosecution have leave to amend the indictment dated 1 August 2006 to omit the words 'and other services' and, if advised, to add another consent on counts.
2. The prosecution be given leave to file an amended indictment within 14 days.
3. If the prosecution in the amended indictment charge offences under s 142.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), that the prosecution provide particulars of the benefit alleged to have been provided and of the dishonesty alleged in respect of each count.