A defendant is entitled to know exactly what he or she must answer. The rule that an information charges one matter exists to make sure of that, and it is one of the few objections that can be taken before the hearing begins.
The rule
An information shall be for one matter only, except that (a) in the case of indictable offences, if the matters of the information are such that they may be charged in one indictment; and (b) in other cases, if the matters of the information are substantially of the same act or omission on the part of the defendant, those matters may be joined in the same information.
The Magistrates’ Manual explains the policy: defendants should be called on to answer one charge at a time so that they know clearly what they have to answer, and hearing several charges together complicates the proceedings with questions of what evidence is relevant to which charge. Section 37 makes the opposite rule for civil complaints, which may be for one or more matters.
Duplicity and uncertainty
| The charge alleges | Defect |
|---|---|
| “obstructed a public sewer and a creek” | Duplicity: two offences in one information |
| “obstructed a public sewer or a creek” | Uncertainty: it cannot be told which offence is alleged |
| “assaulted A and B” in a single scuffle | Arguably one act or omission; joinder may be permitted under s 29(b) |
The example is the Manual’s, drawn from section 37 of the Summary Offences Act. The cure it recommends is the standard one: the magistrate requires the prosecution to elect which charge to proceed with and amends the information by striking out the words indicating the other. Section 32 permits the amendment, and section 33 gives the defendant an adjournment if the change has misled him.
When joinder is allowed
For indictable offences the test is borrowed from the Criminal Code’s rules on indictments, which allow charges founded on the same facts, or forming part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character, to be joined. For simple offences the test is narrower: the matters must be substantially the same act or omission. A person who drives dangerously and, in the same manoeuvre, fails to keep left may be charged with both in one information; a person who drives dangerously on Monday and again on Friday may not.
The Manual notes that the difficulties created by multiple charges can be overcome if the defendant consents to the charges being heard together, but cautions against accepting that consent from an unrepresented defendant where the magistrate cannot be sure no injustice will result. A related concern is double jeopardy: two charges arising from the same act may be an attempt to punish it twice, and Constitution section 37(8) and section 16 of the Criminal Code protect against that.
Several defendants, one incident
Charging several people for the same incident raises a different question: whether their separate informations can be heard together. In Kereku v Dodd [1969–70] PNGLR 176 eight unrepresented men were tried together on separate informations for unlawful striking without being asked whether they consented, and one was denied his cross-examination. Minogue ACJ found a substantial miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeal. The Manual states the rule that emerged: where an offence is committed by two or more persons jointly the charges may be heard together, but first the defendants must be told of their right to separate trials and must clearly express a preference for a joint trial. Regulation 21 permits an information to be laid against two or more persons chargeable jointly.
Taking the objection
Section 32 forbids objection to an information for a defect “in substance or in form” and lets a variance be amended. It is sometimes read as excluding every objection, but the Manual treats duplicity as a live objection which the magistrate must deal with by requiring an election. The practical course is to raise it before the plea: if the defendant pleads to a duplicitous information and is convicted, the argument on appeal becomes whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice under section 230(2), which is harder.
A conviction on a bad information is not automatically void. Section 163 lets the National Court amend a conviction where sufficient grounds were in proof to have authorised it free from the defect, and section 245 sustains a conviction against a defendant who was present and did not object to the absence of an information. The objection is the defendant’s to take, and to take early.
A different rule in civil cases
None of this applies to a complaint. Section 37 allows several matters in one complaint, and regulation 21 allows several defendants. The civil equivalent of the duplicity rule is section 38, which forbids dividing one cause of action into several complaints to keep each within the money limit. See what is a complaint.
The District Courts Act is not on PacLII; it is available on vLex.
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) and check for later amendments. The Act is not on PacLII; the figures and time limits quoted in this series come from the consolidation to No 8 of 2000, and the District Courts (Amendment) Act 2009 changes some of them once it is brought into operation. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.