Natural Resources Access Regulator v Budvalt Pty Ltd; Harris; Harris; Timmins [2019] NSWLEC 169

Natural Resources Access Regulator v Budvalt Pty Ltd; Harris; Harris; Timmins [2019] NSWLEC 169

The Prosecutor did not establish the necessary circumstance in s 29(2)(c) because the proposed groupings did not constitute a series of offences of the same or similar character. The differences in defendants, specific pumping locations, times and dates, and circumstances of the alleged breaches indicated separate offences against the same Water Management Act 2000 prohibitions rather than a series; common legal issues, witnesses, investigative techniques and technology arose from the offences being charged under the same statutory provisions, not from a sufficient relationship between the offences. The Prosecutor's Notices of Motion were therefore dismissed, but the Court found the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings Under the Water Management Act 2000 / Procedural Ruling on the Prosecutor's Notices of Motion Under S 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 for Proceedings to Be Heard Together
Outcome
The Prosecutor's proposed joint hearing orders were refused; two sets of proceedings were ordered to be heard and determined together, and the Prosecutor's Notices of Motion were otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['joint Trial' 'proceedings Heard Together' 'series of Offences' 'metering Offences' 'channel Offences' 'class 5 Jurisdiction']
['environment and Planning' 'criminal Procedure' 'water Management'] ['joint Trial' 'proceedings Heard Together' 'series of Offences' 'metering Offences' 'channel Offences' 'class 5 Jurisdiction']

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 Criminal Proceedings Under the Water Management Act 2000 / Procedural Ruling on the Prosecutor's Notices of Motion Under S 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 for Proceedings to Be Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offences alleged against two or more accused persons formed or were part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character within s 29(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' "Whether the Court's discretion under s 29 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was engaged to order that all ten proceedings, or alternatively the metering offences and channel offences in two trials, be heard together." 'Whether the proceedings should instead be heard together in the groupings consented to by the Defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Prosecutor did not establish the necessary circumstance in s 29(2)(c) because the proposed groupings did not constitute a series of offences of the same or similar character. The differences in defendants, specific pumping locations, times and dates, and circumstances of the alleged breaches indicated separate offences against the same Water Management Act 2000 prohibitions rather than a series; common legal issues, witnesses, investigative techniques and technology arose from the offences being charged under the same statutory provisions, not from a sufficient relationship between the offences. The Prosecutor's Notices of Motion were therefore dismissed, but the Court found the...

Court Disposition

The Prosecutor's proposed joint hearing orders were refused; two sets of proceedings were ordered to be heard and determined together, and the Prosecutor's Notices of Motion were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 29(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, proceedings 2018/231608, 2018/231598 and 2018/231599 are to be heard and determined together.' 'Pursuant to s 29(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, proceedings 2018/238837, 2018/238838, 2018/238839, 2018/238877, 2018/238878 and 2018/238879 are to be...