55 With respect to the submission of counsel that the prosecution failed to remedy the duplicity by identifying which specific action on the part of Ms Vallic was said to contravene s 115(2)(a), the first observation which can be made is that there was only one action on the part of Vallic on either occasion on which the evidence revealed that drinks were ordered, and that was the action of placing the drinks on the bar. On that basis, the proposition that the evidence reveals some ambiguity or that the charge is duplicitous is without substance. It would appear, from the written submissions, that the basis of the allegation of duplicity is that, in relation to each occasion on which Vallic was seen to serve drinks to the group of three men, there were "two distinct transactions which led to, in the first instance, an alcoholic drink being handed to Regan for his consumption and, in the second instance, a drink being consumed by Regan". This interpretation of the evidence is based on the extract from the Magistrate's reasons for decision, outlined above, in which he concludes that in relation to the first occasion the drink "was almost immediately handed to Regan for his consumption" and on the later occasion that "a second drink was provided to and consumed by Regan". On that account, in addition to Vallic's act of placing the drinks on the bar, there was a further act on the part of one of the other men before Regan was supplied with one of the drinks on the bar. That action of one of the other men would seem to be one of the "two distinct transactions" which resulted in Regan being supplied with alcohol. However, as I have noted, that action is not an action of Vallic and hence there is no duplicity of actions on Vallic's part which are said to constitute the charge.