Mr. Mangels was charged in an information with being the owner of a domestic animal, to wit: cattle, and wilfully neglecting to provide suitable and adequate food and shelter for such cattle, contrary to section 402(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
The defence made an application by way of certiorari for an order to quash the information on the ground that the information was duplicitous and therefore a nullity. The information was quashed and the Crown appealed.
The Court allowed the appeal and the order of the trial judge quashing the information was set aside as it was satisfied that the information merely charged the one offence of wilful neglect of cattle that may be committed in a number of ways. Additionally stating that where the charge is one that the accused did wilfully neglect to provide suitable and adequate food and shelter for cattle, of which he was the owner, the essence of the offence is “wilfully neglect” which may be brought about in different ways, namely, by wilfully neglecting to provide suitable and adequate food or shelter. The information is therefore not duplicitous.
Source: Case Law