Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Limited (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 227

Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Limited (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 227

The necessary elements of the clearing of habitat offences and EPA Act breaches were not proven by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. Key findings included: the statutory presumption of knowledge did not apply because no operative development consent existed during the offence period; direct proof of causation by defendants for the environmental harm was lacking, compounded by absence of key witnesses; and admissions in records of interview were unreliable or not sufficient to prove charges. Accordingly, no defendant was criminally liable for the charged offences.

Parties
Prosecutor: Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment; First Defendant: Mato Investments Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Ian Charles Bennett; Third Defendant: Dzeladin Ceman; Fourth Defendant: James Lawrence Coomes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Prosecution (criminal) / Decision After Trial
Outcome
All defendants found not guilty; charges dismissed.
Legal Topics
Damage to Fish Habitat, Threatened Species, Vicarious Liability, Development Consent, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Fisheries Management Act Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Law Planning Law Damage to Fish Habitat Threatened Species Vicarious Liability Development Consent Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment

Prosecutor

Mato Investments Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Ian Charles Bennett

Second Defendant

Dzeladin Ceman

Third Defendant

James Lawrence Coomes

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution (criminal) / Decision After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants caused damage to habitat of threatened ecological communities or fish species under Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether defendants breached development consent under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether statutory presumption of knowledge of habitat applied

Ratio Decidendi

The necessary elements of the clearing of habitat offences and EPA Act breaches were not proven by the Prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt. Key findings included: the statutory presumption of knowledge did not apply because no operative development consent existed during the offence period; direct proof of causation by defendants for the environmental harm was lacking, compounded by absence of key witnesses; and admissions in records of interview were unreliable or not sufficient to prove charges. Accordingly, no defendant was criminally liable for the charged offences.

Court Disposition

All defendants found not guilty; charges dismissed.

Orders

  • All charges against all defendants in relation to alleged clearing of habitat offences and EPA Act charges are dismissed.
  • Prosecutor permitted seven days to consider whether to state a case before entry of formal orders.