Ayles v The Queen [2008] HCA 6

Ayles v The Queen [2008] HCA 6

A trial judge may amend an information to correct a defect under s 281(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), but only where that amendment gives effect to the prosecutor’s stated intention; the judge cannot substitute their own decision on what charge to bring. Where an amendment is made without a formal application by the prosecutor, but reflects the prosecutor's stated wishes and does not cause unfairness, it does not result in a miscarriage of justice. However, an amendment that is not also reflected in a formal note on the information is an administrative irregularity, not a substantive one, if the order is clear and the accused suffers no unfairness. The requirement to...

Parties
Appellant: Raymond Frederick Ayles; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority)
Legal Topics
Amendment of Informations, Prosecutorial Discretion, Role of Trial Judge, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Amendment of Informations Prosecutorial Discretion Role of Trial Judge Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Frederick Ayles

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge may amend a criminal information under s 281(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) without an application from the prosecutor
  2. 2 Whether it is a judicial power to determine or substitute charges where the Director of Public Prosecutions is statutorily charged with that role
  3. 3 Whether a lack of administrative endorsement on the information invalidates an amendment under s 281(3)

Ratio Decidendi

A trial judge may amend an information to correct a defect under s 281(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), but only where that amendment gives effect to the prosecutor’s stated intention; the judge cannot substitute their own decision on what charge to bring. Where an amendment is made without a formal application by the prosecutor, but reflects the prosecutor's stated wishes and does not cause unfairness, it does not result in a miscarriage of justice. However, an amendment that is not also reflected in a formal note on the information is an administrative irregularity, not a substantive one, if the order is clear and the accused suffers no unfairness. The requirement to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed