R v Ratcliff, Stanfield & Utting

The applicants in this case, Malcolm Barry Stanfield and Wendy Utting, sought to quash or dismiss the criminal proceedings against them for criminal defamation. The charges were laid by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on an information filed in the Magistrates Court at Adelaide. This information alleged that the applicants, together with Craig Ratcliff, had committed offences of criminal defamation on various dates between 2004 and 2005. The applicants argued that the proceedings should be quashed or dismissed on several grounds, including the assertion that the DPP was not empowered to lay an ex officio information for minor indictable offences in the superior court, and that the laying of such information amounted to an abuse of process.

The court considered whether the DPP was empowered to lay an ex officio information for minor indictable offences in the superior court, and whether the laying of such information amounted to an abuse of process. The court also considered whether the applicants were deprived of their right to a summary trial, and whether non-compliance by the DPP with section 257 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) as to consent to prosecution invalidated the proceedings. The court found that the DPP was empowered to lay an ex officio information for minor indictable offences in the superior court, and that the laying of such information did not amount to an abuse of process. The court found that the applicants were not deprived of their right to a summary trial, as they had elected for trial in a superior court, and that the lack of certification on the information as originally filed did not render the proceedings invalid.

The court dismissed the applicants' applications to quash or dismiss the proceedings. The court found that the DPP had certified consent to the proceedings on 12 September 2006, and that this was sufficient compliance with section 257 of the CLCA. The court found that the applicants had not established any grounds to support their applications to quash or dismiss the proceedings, and that the proceedings should therefore continue.