Often defence lawyers will represent a client who stands charged with having committed a single offence over an extended period. When this occurs, it is not unusual for the facts to show that the client is accused of having committed multiple offences of a same or similar kind. The practice of combining multiple offences into one condensed charge is often referred to as ‘rolling it up.’
The practice of preferring one ‘rolled up’ charge is appropriate in certain situations. For example, where a client is alleged (and it is undisputed) to have used a stolen credit card to carry out 20 transactions in different locations, a single charge of fraud will achieve the same outcome as if the client was charged with 20.
When can charges be Joined?
However, the practice of joining charges in Queensland is subject to legislation. Section 568 Criminal Code sets out cases in which several charges may be joined into one. These include where the person stands charged with:
- Stealing property; or
- Stealing money subject to the Trusts Accounts Act 1973;
- Fraud; or
- Receiving property;
- Forgery or uttering; or
- Obtaining or dealing with identification information;
- Entering a dwelling or place and stealing;
- Child exploitation offences as described under Criminal Code sections 228A, 228B or 228C;
- Any number of other persons charged with:
- Committing or procuring the commission of the same offence;
- Being accessories after the fact to the same offence;
- Receiving property;
- Any number of other persons charged with committing different or separate offences substantially arising out of the same or closely related set of facts.
Walsh v Tattersall – Each Individual transaction to be Charged
In Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77, the High Court considered the case of the appellant who was initially charged in South Australia with having committed 30 offences under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA). On indictment, the 30 charges were ‘rolled’ into one.
The court later found that this deprived the appellant of being able to distinguish the elements of each alleged act, and importantly, where an element of fraudulent intent could be properly inferred into one alleged act, this had the possibility of unfairly tainting the remainder of the evidence.
As identified by Kirby J, the legislative provision under which the appellant was convicted was one that each individual transaction was to be charged.[1]
Accordingly, whenever a charge sheet reads that the offence occurred on ‘between dates’ or ‘divers dates,’ it may pay to consider whether the joinder is lawful and / or appropriate.
[1] Walsh (1986), 101.
