Dacre & Ors v The Queen

(2018) 57 VR 285; [2018] VSCA 150

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Interlocutory appeal
4. › Adequacy of particulars
5. › Whether particulars give reasonable information as to nature of charge
6. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 159(3)(c), sch 1 cl 1
1. Criminal Law
2. › Charge
3. › Particulars
4. › Foreign incursion offence
5. › Preparatory conduct offence
6. › Preparation for entry into foreign country with intention of engaging in hostile activity
7. › Whether prosecution required to specify particular hostile activity intended
8. › Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 117.1(1), 119.1(1), 119.4(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Charge
3. › Particulars
4. › Joint commission
5. › Whether agreement under s 11.2A requires consensus as to particular conduct or merely shared objective
6. › Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.2A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Preparatory offences
3. › Nature of preparatory conduct offences
4. › Analogy with preparatory terrorism offences
5. › Whether Parliament intended offence to be committed where offender has not decided precisely what he or she intends to do
6. › Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 101.6, 119.4(1)

Quick Take

For charges of preparatory conduct under s 119.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the prosecution is not required to specify with precision the particular hostile activity the accused intended to engage in upon entering the foreign country. The reasoning in Lodhi v The Queen concerning preparatory terrorism offences applies by analogy: Parliament intended criminal responsibility to arise at an early stage where offenders have not decided precisely what they intend to do. However, the dissent of Priest JA raises a substantial argument that joint commission under s 11.2A requires proof of agreement as to particular conduct, not merely a shared objective, which may be revisited in future proceedings.