R v Stringer

The case of R v Stringer involved a defendant who was charged with various sexual offences occurring over a span of years. The dispute reached the court as the defendant sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that the offences in question had been abolished by statute, which did not operate retrospectively. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, and involved complex legal issues regarding the timing of the alleged offences in relation to the legislative changes, and the nature of the offences themselves.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the charges against the defendant could proceed given the legislative abolition of the offences in question. A secondary issue was the relevance of the specific dates alleged in the indictment, and whether these dates could be altered by consent of the parties. The court also needed to consider the potential unfairness to the defendant if the Crown was allowed to present evidence outside the dates specified in the indictment.

The majority of the court held that the specifications of dates in an indictment were immaterial allegations and could not be altered by consent. The court reasoned that it could not be required to try an issue which was incompatible with the law as it stood at a relevant time. In the context of the abolition of offences by statute, the court held that the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings could not succeed simply because the alleged offences took place a year later than alleged, but at a time when such activity was unlawful. Justice Smart emphasised the need for the applicant to verify his position and noted that this had not occurred. Justice Adams, in dissent, argued that the Crown's evidence should be limited to the assertions of conduct within the span of its specification, to prevent an inevitably unfair trial. The final orders of the court upheld the majority decision, dismissing the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings.