Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 639

Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 639

The indictment, as amended to comply with the requirements expressed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, sets out the essential elements required by law. Duplicity does not arise where the offence creates a single act with multiple forbidden characteristics. The application to quash the indictment fails as the amended indictment is not bad for duplicity nor lacking in particularity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Quash Indictment
Outcome
Order sought by the accused is refused; the indictment is to stand in its presently amended form.
Legal Topics
['indictment' 'duplicity' 'particularity' 'terrorism Offences']
['criminal Law'] ['indictment' 'duplicity' 'particularity' 'terrorism Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Quash Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the indictment was bad for duplicity' 'Whether the indictment failed to specify all essential factual elements' 'Whether the indictment lacked sufficient particularity']

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment, as amended to comply with the requirements expressed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, sets out the essential elements required by law. Duplicity does not arise where the offence creates a single act with multiple forbidden characteristics. The application to quash the indictment fails as the amended indictment is not bad for duplicity nor lacking in particularity.

Court Disposition

Order sought by the accused is refused; the indictment is to stand in its presently amended form.

Orders

  • ['Application to quash the indictment refused' 'Indictment to stand in its amended form']