Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 September 1963 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6303600910 |
| Published date | 01 September 1963 |
| Author | W. H. D. Winder |
| Subject Matter | Article |
W.
H.
D.
WINDER,
M.A.,
LL.M.
Legal Correspondent
of
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
DOUBLE CHARGES
R. v, Clow
Two or more offences must not be charged in the same count in
the indictment, or in the same summons, in the alternative. Thus it
has been held that to charge that the defendant drove a car recklessly
or at a speed or in a manner which was dangerous is bad for duplicity.
The word is used in this connexion in its strict sense
of
doubleness,
not
in its sense of deceitfulness. Separate .offences must
not
be
charged in the alternative. The position may be different, however,
if separate offences are charged not in the alternative but together,
by way
of
addition. Thus it has been held thatto charge the defendant
with driving recklessly and at a speed which was dangerous to the
public, having regard to all the circumstances, is not bad for dupli-
city if the driving of the car is one indivisible act.
There is, in a sense, a double charge in both instances,
that
is
to say, whether the charges are alternative or conjunctive,
but
the latter way of charging may be good on the ground that the
act defines the offence by alternatives.
It
may even be that a true
definition by alternatives makes the former way of charging good
also. In the latest case on this somewhat intricate subject, R. v.
Clow [1963] 2 All E.R. 216, the appellant was charged conjunctively
in the same count under s. 1 (1)
of
the Road Traffic Act, 1960,which
makes it an offence to cause the death of another person by the
driving
of
amotor vehicle on a road " recklessly, or at a speed or
in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all
the circumstances
of
the
case".
The indictment alleged that the
appellant had caused the death
of
a person by driving a motor
car at a speed
and
in a manner dangerous to the public
contrary to s. Iof the Act. The trial Judge overruled a submission
that such an indictment was bad for duplicity, the appellant was
convicted and his appeal was dismissed.
It
was argued on his behalf that s. I (1) lays down three separate
offences causing death: (a) by driving a motor car recklessly,
September 1963 454
To continue reading
Request your trial