R v Maitland (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 167

R v Maitland (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 167

The letter dated 21 August 2008 was capable as a matter of law of amounting to consent under s 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW), and there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that it did so; whether consent was actually given was a question of fact for the jury. Taking the Crown evidence at its highest, it was open to the jury to find that Maitland had actual knowledge that Macdonald was substantially motivated to confer a benefit on Maitland and DCM and was not motivated to any significant degree by furthering the interests of New South Wales. Because the case was complex, circumstantial, and substantially documentary, a Prasad direction would be inappropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / At the Close of the Crown Case; Applications for Directed Verdicts of Acquittal And, Alternatively, a Prasad Direction
Outcome
Applications for directed verdicts of acquittal and application for a Prasad direction refused.
Legal Topics
['directed Verdict of Acquittal' 'no Case Submission' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'prasad Direction' 'ministerial Consent to Apply for Exploration Licence Under Mining Act 1992 (nsw), S 13(4)' 'misconduct in Public Office']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'mining Law'] ['directed Verdict of Acquittal' 'no Case Submission' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'prasad Direction' 'ministerial Consent to Apply for Exploration Licence Under Mining Act 1992 (nsw), S 13(4)' 'misconduct in Public Office']

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

Criminal Prosecution / At the Close of the Crown Case; Applications for Directed Verdicts of Acquittal And, Alternatively, a Prasad Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the letter dated 21 August 2008 from the accused Macdonald to the accused Maitland was capable, as a matter of law, of amounting to consent under s 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW).' 'Whether, taking the Crown evidence at its highest, it would be open to the jury to find that the letter amounted to consent to apply for an exploration licence under s 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW).' "Whether, taking the Crown evidence at its highest, there was sufficient evidence that the accused Maitland knew the alleged principal offender's requisite mental state for counts 2 and 4." 'Whether a Prasad direction should be given before the conclusion of the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The letter dated 21 August 2008 was capable as a matter of law of amounting to consent under s 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW), and there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that it did so; whether consent was actually given was a question of fact for the jury. Taking the Crown evidence at its highest, it was open to the jury to find that Maitland had actual knowledge that Macdonald was substantially motivated to confer a benefit on Maitland and DCM and was not motivated to any significant degree by furthering the interests of New South Wales. Because the case was complex, circumstantial, and substantially documentary, a Prasad direction would be inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Applications for directed verdicts of acquittal and application for a Prasad direction refused.

Orders

  • ['The first application for a directed verdict in relation to count 2 is refused.' 'The no case submission in relation to counts 2 and 4 is refused.' 'The application for a Prasad direction is refused.']