Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Auen Grain Pty Ltd; Merrywinebone Pty Ltd; Greentree; Harris (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 126

Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Auen Grain Pty Ltd; Merrywinebone Pty Ltd; Greentree; Harris (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 126

The Court found both Mr Spiers and Mr Mazzer possessed sufficient specialised knowledge based on their training, study, and practical experience to give the opinions in their reports, that their reasoning processes and methodologies were sufficiently disclosed, and that criticisms of impartiality or methodology did not warrant exclusion. Their evidence complied sufficiently with s 79 of the Evidence Act and the Expert Witness Code of Conduct. The evidence was admissible and should not be excluded under s 137 or s 135 of the Evidence Act.

Parties
Prosecutor: Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment; Defendant: Auen Grain Pty Ltd ACN 101 059 769; Defendant: Merrywinebone Pty Ltd ACN 000 937 824; Defendant: Ronald Lewis Greentree; Defendant: Kenneth Bruce Harris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal/environmental Regulatory Prosecution (class 5) / Preliminary Hearing Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence Under S 247 G of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw)
Outcome
Defendants' application to exclude the expert evidence was refused. The reports of Mr Spiers and Mr Mazzer were ruled admissible.
Legal Topics
Opinion Evidence, Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Impartiality of Expert Witnesses, Native Vegetation Clearing
Evidence Criminal Law Environmental Law Procedure Opinion Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Impartiality of Expert Witnesses +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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Prosecutor

Auen Grain Pty Ltd ACN 101 059 769

Defendant

Merrywinebone Pty Ltd ACN 000 937 824

Defendant

Ronald Lewis Greentree

Defendant

Kenneth Bruce Harris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal/environmental Regulatory Prosecution (class 5) / Preliminary Hearing Regarding Admissibility of Expert Evidence Under S 247 G of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Spiers' and Mr Mazzer's expert evidence is admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Spiers and Mr Mazzer possess sufficient specialised knowledge for expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the reasoning processes of the expert reports are sufficiently disclosed and based on specialised knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found both Mr Spiers and Mr Mazzer possessed sufficient specialised knowledge based on their training, study, and practical experience to give the opinions in their reports, that their reasoning processes and methodologies were sufficiently disclosed, and that criticisms of impartiality or methodology did not warrant exclusion. Their evidence complied sufficiently with s 79 of the Evidence Act and the Expert Witness Code of Conduct. The evidence was admissible and should not be excluded under s 137 or s 135 of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to exclude the expert evidence was refused. The reports of Mr Spiers and Mr Mazzer were ruled admissible.

Orders

  • Mr Spiers' and Mr Mazzer's reports are admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); discrete objections to particular paragraphs of those reports will be considered individually if and when required.