R v David Michael WILLS, Caroll Anne HENDERSON, Peter James HENDERSON [2012] NSWDC 250

R v David Michael WILLS, Caroll Anne HENDERSON, Peter James HENDERSON [2012] NSWDC 250

The Crown is not restricted to the specific particulars of favour asserted in only part of the particulars letter, as long as the acts relied upon fall within the elements set out in the indictment and there is no demonstrated substantive unfairness or prejudice to the accused. The evidence and particulars provided encompass a broader course of alleged favour and context, and the trial proceeded on that basis without objection. The judge upheld the objection to the form of the Crown's question as too general, but refused to restrict the Crown case as sought by the defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Defence application to restrict the Crown's case refused. Formal objection to the specific Crown question was upheld.
Legal Topics
['variation of Particulars' 'corrupt Benefits' 'corrupt Commissions' 'money Laundering' 'fraud' 'senior Executive Breach of Trust']
['criminal Law' 'procedure'] ['variation of Particulars' 'corrupt Benefits' 'corrupt Commissions' 'money Laundering' 'fraud' 'senior Executive Breach of Trust']

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 / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown should be restricted in putting its case to the jury on s 249B(1) counts to only those particulars set out in part of the Crown's particulars letter" "Whether the form of the Crown's questions to the accused satisfied requirements of particularity and fairness"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown is not restricted to the specific particulars of favour asserted in only part of the particulars letter, as long as the acts relied upon fall within the elements set out in the indictment and there is no demonstrated substantive unfairness or prejudice to the accused. The evidence and particulars provided encompass a broader course of alleged favour and context, and the trial proceeded on that basis without objection. The judge upheld the objection to the form of the Crown's question as too general, but refused to restrict the Crown case as sought by the defence.

Court Disposition

Defence application to restrict the Crown's case refused. Formal objection to the specific Crown question was upheld.

Orders

  • ['Defence application that the Crown case be restricted is refused.' "Crown's initial question the subject of objection is disallowed as too general; more particular questions required."]