The Queen v Wayne Allen Banks

THE QUEEN v WAYNE ALLEN BANKS
[2003] ACTSC 68 (27 August 2003)

CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – duplicity – indictment alleges single count of possession of various items of stolen property – whether bad for duplicity – indictment not defective.

Crimes Act 1900, s 105
Theft Act 1968 (UK)

Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77
S v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 266
Clive Ormond Smythe (1981) 72 Cr App R 8
DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584
R v Moussad [1999] 152 FLR 373
Khaled Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
Griffiths v Freeman [1970] 1 All ER 1117

Williams: Property Offences, 3^rd ed, Law Book Co 1999, 297

No SCC 40 of 2003

Judge:     Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:     27 August 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No SCC 40 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN
  v
  WAYNE ALLEN BANKS

ORDER

Judge:  Connolly J
Date of Order:  11 August 2003
Date of Judgment:  27 August 2003
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There be no order made to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to amend the indictment.

1. Wayne Allen Banks was to be arraigned on 25 August 2003 on an indictment dated 8 July 2003 charging that –

On the 30^th day of October 2002 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Wayne Allen Banks dishonestly had in his possession stolen property, knowing or believing that property to be stolen property.

1. The indictment then particularises the stolen property as being property belonging to some 44 identified persons or organisations, with each item of property listed.  There were a total of 138 items listed.

1. The accused indicated that he would challenge the indictment on the ground that it is bad for duplicity.  A directions hearing was held on 8 August 2003, and after considering the comprehensive submissions made in writing and orally by Mr Thomas, for the accused, and Mr Todd, for the prosecution, I indicated on 11 August 2003 that I would not direct the Crown to revise the indictment, and that I considered the form of the indictment to be good in law.  I said I would publish my reasons at a later date.  These are my reasons.

1. On 26 August 2003 the accused pleaded guilty to the indictment, although the prosecutor amended the indictment, with Mr Thomas’ consent, to delete two particulars of property allegedly stolen from one organization.

1. The offence with which the accused is charged is that set out in s 105 of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Crimes Act), handling stolen property.  The section provides that ‑

(1)   A person who, dishonestly-

...

(b)has stolen property in his or her possession; or

...

and who knows or believes that property to be stolen property, is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 14 years.

1. The Crown’s case is that on 30 October 2002 police executed a search warrant on premises occupied by the…