Ducret, A.R. v. Chaudhary, S.I. & Anor [1985] FCA 625
The amendments to the particulars did not constitute new charges but only clarified the conduct associated with the alleged offence, so the statutory bar on new prosecution was not engaged. The court permitted substitution of particulars for each summons.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 December 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Particulars
- Outcome
- application for amendment of particulars granted; hearing deferred
- Legal Topics
- ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'amendment of Particulars' 'statute Barred Offences' 'federal Court Procedure']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Application for Amendment of Particulars
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether particulars of offence may be amended after the offence is statute-barred' 'Whether amendment creates a new charge' 'Whether discretion should be exercised to refuse amendment']
Ratio Decidendi
The amendments to the particulars did not constitute new charges but only clarified the conduct associated with the alleged offence, so the statutory bar on new prosecution was not engaged. The court permitted substitution of particulars for each summons.
Court Disposition
application for amendment of particulars granted; hearing deferred
Orders
- ['The particulars sought to be substituted by each notice of motion are permitted and shall be substituted in each matter for the particulars contained in each summons.' 'The defendants are permitted a deferment of the hearing to prepare their defence to the amended particulars.' 'The question of a hearing date for...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment