Crossley v Director of Public Prosecutions

A charge is not duplicitous merely because it states a range of dates. Duplicity requires the charge to allege more than one offence. Where the accepted evidence establishes a single assault by beating, the charge is not bad for duplicity, even if its drafting is vague. The court should also consider whether the form of the charge caused prejudice to the defendant.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by justices for common assault. The charge alleged that he assaulted the complainant by beating between 20 and 23 January 2006. The claimant contended that the charge was bad for duplicity or quasi-duplicity because it covered a period of days. The magistrates found that the complainant had described one assault by beating, occurring during the late evening of 21 January, and convicted him. The central issue was whether the charge was legally defective and whether the conviction was justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered affirmatively the magistrates’ question whether they were correct to conclude that the charge was not bad for duplicity or quasi-duplicity and that the conviction was justified. The second question did not arise.
2. A charge alleging an assault by beating over a stated range of dates may be vague, particularly where it would have been preferable to allege that the offence occurred on a day within that period. Vagueness is not, however, duplicity.
3. Duplicity does not arise where the evidence accepted by the tribunal establishes an assault by beating on a single occasion. The fact that the evidence ranged over three days did not alter that conclusion, since the case also involved a separate charge concerning criminal damage and the events were factually connected.
4. In any event, no prejudice was caused. The nature of the charge and the events under scrutiny were apparent from the complainant’s evidence.
5. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had the benefit of a legal aid order, which was to be assessed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated from the claimant’s conviction by justices for common assault. The appeal was dismissed.