# Citation Bant v Grant [2021] VSC 276 19 May 2021 Richard J # Court Summary Criminal Law — jurisdiction, practice and procedure — Charge of speeding contrary to r 20(1), Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) — Charge misdescribed location of offence; did not state time of day or description of vehicle — Whether charge could be amended to correctly describe location of offence — Whether charge sufficiently described nature of offence — Whether amendment had effect of charging new offence — Essential elements of offence of speeding contrary to r 20(1) — Whether time of day an essential element of offence — Effect of s 9(2), Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) — Whether charge contained particulars necessary to give reasonable information as to the nature of the charge — Whether reasonable information included description of vehicle — Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic), r 20 — Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 6, 8, 9, 32, Sch 1, cl 1(b) # Summary Brandon BANT was charged under r 20(1) of the Road Safety Rules 2017 (Vic). The charge sheet read: >“The accused at Camperdown on 23/06/2019, being the driver of a vehicle, other than a heavy vehicle, on a length of road, namely, Princes Hwy between Rowans Road and Jubilee Park Rd, did drive at a speed which exceeded a speed-limit sign of 100 kilometres per hour, which applied to the accused for the length of road on which the accused was driving, by less than 35 kilometres per hour. Detected speed 129 km/h. Alleged speed 127 km/h.” ## Contested Grounds Mr. BANT contested the following: - The place of the alleged offending being "Camperdown" was wrong, it should have been Allansford due to where the road was; and - The factual element of the [[Vehicle]] he was alleged to have driven was not included in the charge; and - The time of the offence was omitted from the charge. # The Legal Issues At [6], Mr BANT stated the issues as: 1. Was the amendment precluded by [[Section 8 Order for amendment of charge-sheet]](3) and (4) because: 1. The charge-sheet before the amendment did not sufficiently disclose the nature of the offence; or 2. the amendment had the effect of charging a new offence after the expiry of the applicable limitation period? 2. Is the time of day an essential element of the offence of exceeding the speed-limit contrary to r 20(1) of the Road Rules, for the purposes of [[Section 9 Errors etc. in charge-sheet|s 9]](2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act? 3. Is the charge invalid, because it does not contain particulars that are necessary to give reasonable information as to the nature of the charge, as required by s 6(3) and Schedule 1, Clause 1(b) re: 1. the time of alleged offence; and 2. the vehicle in which it is alleged the offence was committed; and 3. if the charge could not be amended, the place of the alleged offence? 4. If the charge could not be amended, or is invalid, what orders should the court make? # Findings At [7] Richard J provided his answers to each question: 1. The amendment was not precluded by s 8(3) & (4). The charge-sheet before amendment sufficiently disclosed the nature of the offence. The amendment did not have the effect of charging a new offence. 2. Time is not an essential element of the offence of speeding. 3. The charge contained the particulars necessary to give BANT reasonable information about the nature of the charge. The essential factual ingredients of the offence were alleged in the charge, as amended. 4. The charge could be amended and is valid. Appeal dismissed.