DATSA vs. THE REPUBLIC

The appellant was charged as follows: [his lordship here read the statement of offence as set out in the headnote and continued:] It will be observed that what passed for the statement of offence was in fact the particulars of the offence. The offending section of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), was not stated. Learned counsel for the Republic while admitting this irregularity urged that it was not fatal since it could be cured by the general proviso contained in section 330 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), as amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 261), s. 7. I do not accept this argument. The law enjoins on the prosecutor to be precise as to the charge so that an accused person is aware of what he or she is to answer. The particulars as they stood despite the use of the word “steal” could apply to a host of other crimes. In R. v. Woods [1968] 3 W.L.R. 1192 at p. 1195, C.A., Phillimore L.J. reading the judgment of the English Court of ...