STEPHEN JOHN STANTON v JOHN ABERNETHY [1991] NSWCA 258

STEPHEN JOHN STANTON v JOHN ABERNETHY [1991] NSWCA 258

While it was open to the prosecution to charge by reference to the effect of combined answers or statements, each information was defective because it did not allege with sufficient particularity both the falsity and the knowledge of falsity at the time the evidence was given. The Crown should cure the defects and reframe the charges.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen John Stanton; Respondent: John Abernethy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application Following Committal Proceedings
Outcome
Declarations that each of the four informations is defective; Crown should be required to lay fresh charges to cure defects; in default, the informations should be dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
False Evidence, Particulars of Charges, Defective Informations, Pleading Requirements
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure False Evidence Particulars of Charges Defective Informations Pleading Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Stanton

Appellant

John Abernethy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application Following Committal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was open to the prosecution to charge the appellant by reference to the substance of answers rather than particular words
  2. 2 Whether the informations/charges were defective in form

Ratio Decidendi

While it was open to the prosecution to charge by reference to the effect of combined answers or statements, each information was defective because it did not allege with sufficient particularity both the falsity and the knowledge of falsity at the time the evidence was given. The Crown should cure the defects and reframe the charges.

Court Disposition

Declarations that each of the four informations is defective; Crown should be required to lay fresh charges to cure defects; in default, the informations should be dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Declare that each of the four informations is defective as referred to in the reasons for judgment.
  • First respondent to require the second respondent to lay fresh charges framed to cure those defects.