EPA v Gilmour & Anor [No.4] [2001] NSWLEC 122

EPA v Gilmour & Anor [No.4] [2001] NSWLEC 122

The submission of 'no case to answer' was refused because, on the evidence as it stands and taken at its highest, a reasonable court could lawfully convict the defendant; the issue of identity remains for determination on the whole of the evidence.

Parties
Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: Glenn Rex Gilmour; Defendant: Tableland Topdressing Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Ruling on 'no Case to Answer' Submission
Outcome
no-case submission refused
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer Submission, Evidence, Identification of Accused
Environmental Law No Case to Answer Submission Evidence Identification of Accused

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

Glenn Rex Gilmour

Defendant

Tableland Topdressing Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Ruling on 'no Case to Answer' Submission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is evidence capable of supporting conviction against Gilmour at the close of the prosecution case
  2. 2 Application of the 'no case to answer' test

Ratio Decidendi

The submission of 'no case to answer' was refused because, on the evidence as it stands and taken at its highest, a reasonable court could lawfully convict the defendant; the issue of identity remains for determination on the whole of the evidence.

Court Disposition

no-case submission refused