Particulars
The charge does not describe the particular circumstances as its foundation. A description of such can be given in 'particulars.' Particulars are required by the defence, prosecution and the court (Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467) and their delivery (where the prosecution has refused a request or where the defence believes the particulars are not sufficient) is at the Court's discretion (s 573 Criminal Code). In assessing the sufficiency of particulars there is no absolute rule, each case is to be decided on its merits, see R v S [2001] QdR 445.
Why request particulars?
'particulars have a number of functions: they furnish a statement of the case sufficiently clear to allow the other party a fair opportunity to meet it...they define the issues for decision in the litigation and thereby enable the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be determined at trial' Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658.
There are a number of problems with a lack of particularity:
'(a) embarrassment to the accused in having to defend...an indeterminate [no.] of alleged offences occurring on unspecified dates;
(b) loss of opportunity for the accused to raise specific and effective defences...because the absence of specificity may deprive him of his capacity to know how he may answer such charges;
(c) difficulty in determining the admissibility of ... [certain] evidence;
(d) difficulty in ensuring that any verdit is unanimous as to its factual basis;...
(g) difficulty with subsequent pleas of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict, although some members of the court considered that s 17 of the Code would obviate this problem;...
(j) difficulty in identifying the appropriate offence for punishment in the event of conviction;
(k) unfairness inherent in requiring the accused to defend himself in respect of any occasion in which an offence may have been committed...' R v Rogers CA No 445 of 1997 & No 17 of 1998, 23 March 1998 and 6 May 1998 (Unreported).
What is the consequence of particulars being provided?
Compare R v Lewis [1994] 1 Qd R 613: ‘Particulars when ordered and delivered will have a force and significance by virtue of the very fact that our criminal procedure provides for them … Obviously particulars must be read with the indictment in defining the terms of the charge and the case which the Crown has to prove’, WITH Coleman v Kinbacher & Anor (Qld Police) [2003] QCA 575 which notes that 'if the facts proved by the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of an offence then a conviction must follow even though the Crown may have furnished particulars not all of which were made out.'
Why request particulars?
'particulars have a number of functions: they furnish a statement of the case sufficiently clear to allow the other party a fair opportunity to meet it...they define the issues for decision in the litigation and thereby enable the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be determined at trial' Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658.
There are a number of problems with a lack of particularity:
'(a) embarrassment to the accused in having to defend...an indeterminate [no.] of alleged offences occurring on unspecified dates;
(b) loss of opportunity for the accused to raise specific and effective defences...because the absence of specificity may deprive him of his capacity to know how he may answer such charges;
(c) difficulty in determining the admissibility of ... [certain] evidence;
(d) difficulty in ensuring that any verdit is unanimous as to its factual basis;...
(g) difficulty with subsequent pleas of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict, although some members of the court considered that s 17 of the Code would obviate this problem;...
(j) difficulty in identifying the appropriate offence for punishment in the event of conviction;
(k) unfairness inherent in requiring the accused to defend himself in respect of any occasion in which an offence may have been committed...' R v Rogers CA No 445 of 1997 & No 17 of 1998, 23 March 1998 and 6 May 1998 (Unreported).
What is the consequence of particulars being provided?
Compare R v Lewis [1994] 1 Qd R 613: ‘Particulars when ordered and delivered will have a force and significance by virtue of the very fact that our criminal procedure provides for them … Obviously particulars must be read with the indictment in defining the terms of the charge and the case which the Crown has to prove’, WITH Coleman v Kinbacher & Anor (Qld Police) [2003] QCA 575 which notes that 'if the facts proved by the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of an offence then a conviction must follow even though the Crown may have furnished particulars not all of which were made out.'