A trial judge may not direct the jury on an alternative basis for conviction that is inconsistent with the Crown's particulars without the Crown first applying to amend those particulars. Where assault is charged and the alleged force did not connect with the complainant, throwing an object can only amount to an attempted assault, not a separate basis for conviction, and the jury must be directed on the requisite intent for attempt (meaning by action to achieve a particular result). The case also confirms that where two Crown witnesses give conflicting accounts of a single course of conduct, the Crown is not required to elect between the versions as this does not constitute latent ambiguity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.