Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 37

Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2011] NSWLEC 37

The Defendants did not discharge their onus of showing unfairness, unfair prejudice, or impropriety. Although Mr Coomes' presence at the interview was unusual and probably undesirable, he attended voluntarily, said nothing, played no role, and nothing in Mr Bennett's answers indicated that his presence affected the answers. Mr Potter's later knowledge that Mr Coomes became a defendant could not be imputed at the time of the interview. In context, Mr Bennett's use of "we" referred to Mato and/or himself, not Mr Coomes. The challenged questioning was orthodox and relevant, many answers were admissions or capable of being admissions, and the hearsay rule did not apply to admissions. Section...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Prosecution for Offences Under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 / Voir Dire Procedural Ruling on Objections to the Record of Interview of Mr Bennett Dated 12 November 2007
Outcome
The Defendants' objections to the record of interview of Mr Bennett dated 12 November 2007 were not sustained and the record of interview was not struck out in whole or part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Record of Interview' 'discretion to Exclude Admissions' 'unfair Prejudice in Criminal Proceedings' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'hearsay and Admissions']
['evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'fisheries and Environmental Regulation'] ['admissibility of Record of Interview' 'discretion to Exclude Admissions' 'unfair Prejudice in Criminal Proceedings' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'hearsay and Admissions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 5 Prosecution for Offences Under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 / Voir Dire Procedural Ruling on Objections to the Record of Interview of Mr Bennett Dated 12 November 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the record of interview of Mr Bennett should be struck out in its entirety under s 90, s 137 and s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 because Mr Coomes was present during the interview.' 'Whether Mr Bennett\'s repeated use of "we" made the record of interview misleading or ambiguous.' 'Whether particular questions and answers in the record of interview should be struck out as hearsay, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, persistent, or not capable of amounting to admissions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants did not discharge their onus of showing unfairness, unfair prejudice, or impropriety. Although Mr Coomes' presence at the interview was unusual and probably undesirable, he attended voluntarily, said nothing, played no role, and nothing in Mr Bennett's answers indicated that his presence affected the answers. Mr Potter's later knowledge that Mr Coomes became a defendant could not be imputed at the time of the interview. In context, Mr Bennett's use of "we" referred to Mato and/or himself, not Mr Coomes. The challenged questioning was orthodox and relevant, many answers were admissions or capable of being admissions, and the hearsay rule did not apply to admissions. Section...

Court Disposition

The Defendants' objections to the record of interview of Mr Bennett dated 12 November 2007 were not sustained and the record of interview was not struck out in whole or part.

Orders

  • ["The Defendants' objections to the record of interview of Mr Bennett dated 12 November 2007 are not sustained." 'The record of interview in whole or part is not struck out.']