Harrison v Baring [2012] NSWLEC 117

Harrison v Baring [2012] NSWLEC 117

The defendant, as director, knowingly authorised and permitted BPPL to take water from the Lachlan River and use water supply works without complying with mandatory ordering and reporting requirements of the Water Management Act. The evidence established each element of the ten offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecutor proved that no water was ordered, meters were not functioning and not reported, and the defendant's admissions were admissible. Charges were filed within the limitation period under s 364(3).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Ex Parte Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of all ten offences as particularised in the summonses filed on 20 September 2011.
Legal Topics
['water Management Offences' 'strict Liability Offences' 'evidence Admissibility' 'director Liability' 'limitation Period']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['water Management Offences' 'strict Liability Offences' 'evidence Admissibility' 'director Liability' 'limitation Period']

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 / Ex Parte Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendant committed ten offences under Water Management Act 2000' 'Whether water was taken and used without required licence/approval' 'Whether defendant knowingly authorised/permitted the offences' 'Whether charges commenced within limitation period' "Admissibility of defendant's admissions"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, as director, knowingly authorised and permitted BPPL to take water from the Lachlan River and use water supply works without complying with mandatory ordering and reporting requirements of the Water Management Act. The evidence established each element of the ten offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecutor proved that no water was ordered, meters were not functioning and not reported, and the defendant's admissions were admissible. Charges were filed within the limitation period under s 364(3).

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of all ten offences as particularised in the summonses filed on 20 September 2011.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is guilty of each of the ten offences as particularised in the summonses (50856 - 50865 of 2011) filed on 20 September 2011.']