Automated Summary
Key Facts
Super Décor & Co Ltd was charged with prohibited consumer trade practice under sections 4(b) and 13(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1979 for misleading consumers about a staircase's wood type. The prosecution sought to amend the charge from 'teck' to 'Suar timber', which the accused objected to, claiming prejudice. The court ruled the amendment permissible as it did not alter the legal charge, occurred early in proceedings, and allowed the accused's counsel to prepare an adequate defense.
Issues
The court evaluated whether the prosecution's amendment to the information, changing the type of wood in the staircase charge from 'teck' to 'Suar timber' under sections 4(b) and 13(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1979, was permissible. The defense objected, arguing the amendment caused prejudice, but the court found no evidence of such prejudice. The trial had not started, the accused was legally represented, and the amendment did not alter the charge's nature. The court concluded the amendment was allowed without prejudicing the accused's right to a fair trial.
Holdings
The court allowed the prosecution's amendment to the information regarding the type of wood (from 'teck' to 'Suar timber') in the charge under the Fair Trading Act 1979, finding no prejudice to the accused as the trial had not commenced and the defense could still prepare adequately.
Remedies
The court found the defense's objection to the amendment without merit and therefore allowed the amendment to the information.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized that it has wide powers to amend criminal information, referencing the principle that courts can amend information as long as no prejudice is caused to the accused. The amendment must not introduce a new charge but can clarify details like the type of wood in the staircase.
Precedent Name
Bungaroo v R
Cited Statute
Fair Trading Act 1979
Judge Name
Ms Bibi Azna Bholah
Passage Text
- 13. In light of the aforementioned reasons, I find that the objection raised by the defence counsel is without merit. I therefore allow the amendment to the information.
- 11. It is noteworthy that the proposed amended words do not alter the charge preferred against the accused. Moreover, the motion to amend came at a very early stage of the proceedings, before the hearing of any evidence so that the accused cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice in the preparation and conduct of his defence.
- 9. I have further noted that learned counsel for the accused has merely mentioned of prejudice caused to the accused but however did not provide any further details or any evidence that shows that the accused may have been misled into preparing and presenting a defence to a different set of circumstances inasmuch as the trial has not even started and no evidence adduced at this stage.