R v Griggs

The appeal concerned a decision by Higgins CJ of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had rejected a plea of guilty by the respondent to an offence of breaching a protection order. The dispute arose from the respondent's alleged contravention of a protection order made under the *Protection Orders Act 2001* (ACT).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's plea of guilty to the charge of breaching the protection order should have been accepted by the primary judge, notwithstanding the omission of certain words from the charge. Specifically, the charge as presented to Higgins CJ omitted the phrase "who had been personally served with a copy of the protection order," which was a material element of the offence as defined by section 34 of the Act.

The Court reasoned that the omission of the phrase "who had been personally served with a copy of the protection order" did not render the charge fundamentally defective to the point where a plea of guilty could not be accepted. It was held that the charge, as amended by consent to include this crucial element, sufficiently particularised the offence. The Court applied the principle that where a respondent admits to the factual elements constituting the offence, a conviction can properly follow, even if the initial charge was imperfectly worded, provided the amendment rectifies the defect and the respondent consents to it.

Consequently, the Court upheld the appeal against Higgins CJ’s decision, amended the charge by consent to include the omitted words, convicted the respondent of the offence of breaching the protection order, and sentenced the respondent to the rising of the Court.