Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published March 6, 2008
Regina v Marchese

The fact that a count in an indictment was duplicitous would not lead to the quashing of a conviction if, on the facts, the duplicity had not caused any injustice to the defendant.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, (Lord Phillips of Worth Mat-ravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Royce and Mr Justice Beatson) so held on February 11, 2008, when dismissing an appeal by Maria Marchese against her conviction at Southwark Crown Court (Judge Price and a jury) on August 2, 2006, of threats to kill, contrary to section 16 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that their Lordships accepted that the count was technically duplicitous and that the threats should have been separately identified in the indictment.

In R v Thompson ((1913) 9 Cr App R 252) the Court of Appeal held that the fact that a count was duplicitous would not automatically lead to the quashing of a conviction. It was submitted that Thompson was no longer good law because in R v Clarke; R v McDaid( The TimesFebruary 8, 2008) the House of Lords held that a trial that took place where the indictment had not been signed was a nullity.

Their Lordships did not accept that. It had always been accepted that a defective count could be amended in the course of a trial. That demonstrated that such a count was not invalid. Clarke had not implicitly overruled Thompson.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones