Coburn (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) v Cool-Off Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLC 6

Coburn (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) v Cool-Off Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLC 6

The prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Cool-Off Pty Ltd knew that Mr Rando was doing something illegal and, with that knowledge, intentionally procured the offence of dealing in a protected animal. The court accepted Mr Staughton’s evidence about the defendant’s knowledge and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant knew Mr Rando lacked legal authority or was doing something that amounted to an offence. An essential ingredient of accessorial liability was therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Procuring an Offence of Dealing in a Protected Animal (kangaroo) Pursuant to Ss 2.5(c) and 13.9 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (nsw) / Trial in the Local Court of New South Wales
Outcome
The defendant was found not guilty and the charge was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['accessorial Liability' 'strict Liability' 'honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact' 'protected Animals' 'kangaroos' 'biodiversity Conservation Licences']
['criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'biodiversity Conservation'] ['accessorial Liability' 'strict Liability' 'honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact' 'protected Animals' 'kangaroos' 'biodiversity Conservation Licences']

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 for Procuring an Offence of Dealing in a Protected Animal (kangaroo) Pursuant to Ss 2.5(c) and 13.9 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (nsw) / Trial in the Local Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the offence under s 2.5(c) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) is an offence of absolute liability or strict liability.' 'Whether the common law ground of exculpation of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available to the alleged principal offender and to the alleged secondary participant.' 'How the common law doctrine of accessorial liability of aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring applies to a charge laid under s 13.9 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW).' 'What ingredients the prosecution must prove where the alleged principal offence is a strict liability offence.' 'Whether the prosecution proved that Cool-Off Pty Ltd knew that Mr Rando was doing something illegal and intentionally procured the offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Cool-Off Pty Ltd knew that Mr Rando was doing something illegal and, with that knowledge, intentionally procured the offence of dealing in a protected animal. The court accepted Mr Staughton’s evidence about the defendant’s knowledge and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant knew Mr Rando lacked legal authority or was doing something that amounted to an offence. An essential ingredient of accessorial liability was therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

The defendant was found not guilty and the charge was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is found not guilty.' 'The charge is dismissed.']