Held:
R. v. Harvey
distinguished. that insufficient
particulars of offences charged
summarily do not vitiate
convictions provided that
accused has adequate notice of
charges.
Appellant in person.
Ivor Brace
for Crown.
The following judgment was
delivered :KINGDON, c.J.,
NIGERIA.
In this case all the elements
which go to make up the separate
offences charged in the two
counts were not set out in the
particulars, and if the trial
had been upon information, it
would have been necessary to
quash the convictions on the
authority of
Rex v. Harvey,
II Cox 662. But this was a
summary trial, and the same
considerations do not apply. It
is necessary however that the
accused should have adequate
notice of the charges made
against him, and the Court is
satisfied that in this case he
had. It is desirable that all
the elements going to make up
the offence should be set out in
the charges, but in a summary
trial an omission does not
vitiate the trial provided the
accused knows what he is charged
with. On the merits the
appellant was clearly guilty.
The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
