ABSTRACT
As suggested in Julian (above), it is of paramount importance that the court first considers any ensuing prejudice that may accrue to the defendant if the amendment is granted. If the accused person will be seriously prejudiced by the granting of an amendment to the complaint, count or indictment and this prejudice will not be cured by an adjournment, the amendment should not be granted. In R v Fong (1970) 16 WIR 156, the Jamaica Court of Appeal considered a case where the prosecution sought and was granted leave to amend a four-count indictment, one count alleging larceny, to include a fifth count alleging the alternative offence of receiving. This was done before arraignment and despite the objection of the defence counsel who requested that a new indictment be filed to include the additional count. On appeal, the court held that the original indictment was defective in that it failed to include the alternative (to larceny) charge of receiving as disclosed by the depositions. Since the amendment was granted before arraignment, no injustice had been done to the appellant as stipulated in the Indictments Law, Cap 158.
