Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
The Court of Appeal dealt with two issues in the present case. The first was whether or not it was necessary on a charge of stealing that the prosecution identify in the indictment and prove the true ownership of the goods which are alleged to have been stolen? The Court considered a variety of decisions, including those dealing with the common law offence of stealing, to the effect that whilst the identification of the owner of goods alleged to have been stolen was an appropriate particular to achieve fairness, it was not essential to the laying of a proper charge. It was held that s 391 of the Criminal Code required that it should be shown that at the time the goods were stolen that they were owned by another, but there was no requirement to prove who owned them. Further, pursuant to s 564(3) of the Code there was no requirement to identify in the subject charge the owner of the premises broken into nor the owner of the goods. The second point considered by the Court was the question of the extent to which an accused is bound by procedural irregularities which are “waived” by their Counsel in the course of a trial. In this case, the Counsel at trial had indicated that there was no issue in the trial as to who was the owner of the premises which were broken into. That occurred after the Crown had failed to establish the ownership of the premises. It was observed that in the usual course, subject of certain exceptions, the accused is bound by the manner in which their Counsel conducted their case in the same way as a party is so bound in civil proceedings.