DPP v C O'G [1999] NSWSC 542

DPP v C O'G [1999] NSWSC 542

The magistrate erred in law because the words "the inclosed lands of any other person" in s 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 do not require the named person to have a proprietary interest or exclusive possession. The RTA's contractual licence and occupation gave it a sufficient right in connection with Drivers Triangle for the land to be described as inclosed lands of the RTA.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Stated Case Appeal Concerning an Information Under S 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 / Supreme Court of New South Wales Determination of Stated Case From Bidura Children's Court
Outcome
Question in the stated case answered in the affirmative; the Children's Court determination was erroneous in law.
Legal Topics
['inclosed Lands' 'licence to Enter and Use Land' 'exclusive Possession' 'consent to Entry' 'stated Case']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'property Law'] ['inclosed Lands' 'licence to Enter and Use Land' 'exclusive Possession' 'consent to Entry' 'stated Case']

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

Stated Case Appeal Concerning an Information Under S 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 / Supreme Court of New South Wales Determination of Stated Case From Bidura Children's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the expression "the inclosed lands of any other person" in s 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 requires that the person have a proprietary interest or exclusive right to possession of the land.' 'Whether land licensed to the Roads and Traffic Authority without exclusive possession could be described in the information as inclosed lands "of the Roads and Traffic Authority".' 'Whether proof of an offence under s 4(1) required proof of absence of consent from the owner, occupier and person apparently in charge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in law because the words "the inclosed lands of any other person" in s 4(1) of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 do not require the named person to have a proprietary interest or exclusive possession. The RTA's contractual licence and occupation gave it a sufficient right in connection with Drivers Triangle for the land to be described as inclosed lands of the RTA.

Court Disposition

Question in the stated case answered in the affirmative; the Children's Court determination was erroneous in law.

Orders

  • ['The question asked in the Stated Case whether the determination was erroneous in law is answered in the affirmative.' 'No order as to costs; liberty to apply in respect thereof.']