Director General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] NSWLEC 56

Director General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] NSWLEC 56

The 16 prosecutions should be heard and determined together because they arose from common facts and substantially common evidence, and the risk of unfair prejudice to Mr Coomes from records of interview admissible only against other defendants was not real in a judge-alone trial where the judge could confine findings to evidence admissible against him. Any additional costs or complexity did not outweigh the efficiencies, witness convenience and interests of justice favouring a joint trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Environmental Offences / Prosecutor's Notice of Motion Seeking That 16 Prosecutions Be Heard and Determined Together Under S 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw)
Outcome
Application granted; joint trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['joint Trial of Co Defendants' 'separate Trials' 'environmental Offences' 'damage to Habitat of Threatened Species or Ecological Community' 'development Carried Out Contrary to Development Consent Condition']
['criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law' 'fisheries Law'] ['joint Trial of Co Defendants' 'separate Trials' 'environmental Offences' 'damage to Habitat of Threatened Species or Ecological Community' 'development Carried Out Contrary to Development Consent Condition']

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

Prosecution for Environmental Offences / Prosecutor's Notice of Motion Seeking That 16 Prosecutions Be Heard and Determined Together Under S 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether 16 prosecutions against four defendants should be heard and determined together under s 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).' 'Whether the interests of justice required a separate trial for Mr Coomes because records of interview of other defendants might be prejudicial to him.' 'Whether the additional costs, complexity and different role of Mr Coomes as project manager justified separate trials.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 16 prosecutions should be heard and determined together because they arose from common facts and substantially common evidence, and the risk of unfair prejudice to Mr Coomes from records of interview admissible only against other defendants was not real in a judge-alone trial where the judge could confine findings to evidence admissible against him. Any additional costs or complexity did not outweigh the efficiencies, witness convenience and interests of justice favouring a joint trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted; joint trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings 50052-50067 of 2009 be heard and determined together.' 'The parties have liberty to approach the Registrar forthwith to obtain a date for trial of the proceedings.']