Natural Resources Access Regulator v Littore [2024] NSWLEC 53

Natural Resources Access Regulator v Littore [2024] NSWLEC 53

The notice of motion was dismissed because Littore did not establish that evidence of any act or omission constituting the charged s 60C offences first came to the attention of any relevant authorised officer before 31 October 2019. Reid's earlier investigations concerned unauthorised pumps and breach of a Stop Work Order, not evidence of taking water in excess of allocation. Finch and Shaw were not authorised officers before 8 March 2018, and in any event their earlier observations amounted to suspicions or concerns, not evidence of the alleged offences. The discovery and reporting of Mainline 3 on 31 October 2019 was the first time such evidence came to a relevant authorised officer's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Environmental Offence Prosecution Under the Water Management Act 2000 / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out Four Summonses as Statute Barred
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['time Limits for Commencing Prosecutions' 'evidence of Alleged Offence' 'authorised Officers' 'taking Water Otherwise Than in Accordance With Water Allocation' 'statutory Construction']
['environmental Law' 'water Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['time Limits for Commencing Prosecutions' 'evidence of Alleged Offence' 'authorised Officers' 'taking Water Otherwise Than in Accordance With Water Allocation' 'statutory Construction']

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 Environmental Offence Prosecution Under the Water Management Act 2000 / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out Four Summonses as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summonses were statute barred under s 364(2) and s 364(3) of the Water Management Act 2000 because evidence of the alleged offences first came to the attention of any relevant authorised officer before 31 October 2019.' 'Who was a relevant authorised officer for the purposes of s 364(3) of the Water Management Act 2000 and when their knowledge was relevantly obtained.' 'Whether evidence known to a person before appointment as an authorised officer is relevant for s 364(3) of the Water Management Act 2000.' 'Whether suspicions or beliefs about unmetered water taking were sufficient to constitute evidence of any act or omission constituting the alleged offences.' 'Whether the pre-31 October 2019 material was evidence of taking water otherwise than in accordance with the water allocation during the charged water years.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because Littore did not establish that evidence of any act or omission constituting the charged s 60C offences first came to the attention of any relevant authorised officer before 31 October 2019. Reid's earlier investigations concerned unauthorised pumps and breach of a Stop Work Order, not evidence of taking water in excess of allocation. Finch and Shaw were not authorised officers before 8 March 2018, and in any event their earlier observations amounted to suspicions or concerns, not evidence of the alleged offences. The discovery and reporting of Mainline 3 on 31 October 2019 was the first time such evidence came to a relevant authorised officer's...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' 'The exhibits are to be returned.' 'The matters are listed before the List Judge on 31 May 2024 for further directions.']