Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Applicant lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of gross indecency offence
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal, and affirms High Court order refusing to prohibit the trial of the appellant and refusing to make a declaration that the offence of gross indecency contrary to common law is incompatible with the Constitution, on the grounds that the applicant lacks the standing to challenge the constitutionality of the offence with which he is charged, and in any event the offence of gross indecency does not fall foul of the requirement for legal certainty contemplated by the Constitution.
Criminal law – judicial review – appeal of High Court order refusing to prohibit the trial of the appellant and refusing a declaration that s. 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 is incompatible with the Constitution – s. 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 – appellant has been returned for trial to the Circuit Court on seven counts of gross indecency – complainant delay and prosecutorial delay – Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 – whether the applicant has locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of the offence with which he is charged – offence of gross indecency does not fall foul of the requirement for legal certainty contemplated by the Constitution – issue of consent and gross indecency – gender discrimination – privacy – appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
