Where the Crown case alleges multiple applications of force separated by time and circumstance (here, a gap of about two minutes and a change in the nature of the assault), the indictment must charge separate offences rather than treating all applications of force as one continuing assault. The question of whether an indictment is duplicitous is one of law for the trial judge, not a question of fact for the jury. The proviso in s 668E(1A) cannot apply where duplicity means it is impossible to know whether the jury was unanimous as to which particular assault grounded the conviction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.