The respondent was charged with possession of stolen property, but the information lacked an essential averment.
The trial judge quashed the defective counts after the respondent pleaded not guilty.
The Crown subsequently swore a new information containing the missing words.
The respondent pleaded autrefois acquit, which was refused by the second trial judge, leading to a conviction.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from conviction.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's decision to quash the original information under section 529 of the Criminal Code, rather than amending it, was tantamount to an acquittal, thereby making the plea of autrefois acquit available to the accused.
