Morrison v Peacock and Roslyndale Shipping Company Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 142

Morrison v Peacock and Roslyndale Shipping Company Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 142

A stay was appropriate because the s 5AE stated case process had been set in train and was not complete, the Court of Criminal Appeal had not made an order requiring this Court to acquit the defendants, an acquittal would complete the proceedings and at least risk jeopardising the prosecutor's pending special leave application, the point sought to be raised in the High Court went directly to whether the defendants had made out their statutory defence, the special leave application was not said to be plainly hopeless, and the prejudice from delay did not outweigh those considerations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Summary Criminal Proceedings for Offences Against S 8(1) of the Marine Pollution Act 1987 / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Determination of the Prosecutor's Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia And, If Leave Is Granted, Pending Determination of the Appeal
Outcome
Stay granted; defendants' notice of motion for final orders dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'special Leave Application to the High Court of Australia' 'stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'statutory Defence Under the Marine Pollution Act 1987' 'effect of Pending Appeal Process on Acquittal']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'marine Pollution'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'special Leave Application to the High Court of Australia' 'stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'statutory Defence Under the Marine Pollution Act 1987' 'effect of Pending Appeal Process on Acquittal']

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

Summary Criminal Proceedings for Offences Against S 8(1) of the Marine Pollution Act 1987 / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Determination of the Prosecutor's Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia And, If Leave Is Granted, Pending Determination of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the prosecutor's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and, if leave is granted, pending determination of the appeal." "Whether the Court should make final orders acquitting the defendants while the prosecutor's special leave application remains pending." 'Whether an acquittal would risk rendering the special leave application hypothetical or otherwise jeopardise it under s 5AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether prejudice to the defendants from further delay outweighed the reasons for granting a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was appropriate because the s 5AE stated case process had been set in train and was not complete, the Court of Criminal Appeal had not made an order requiring this Court to acquit the defendants, an acquittal would complete the proceedings and at least risk jeopardising the prosecutor's pending special leave application, the point sought to be raised in the High Court went directly to whether the defendants had made out their statutory defence, the special leave application was not said to be plainly hopeless, and the prejudice from delay did not outweigh those considerations.

Court Disposition

Stay granted; defendants' notice of motion for final orders dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["I grant a stay of the proceedings until the determination of the prosecutor's application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia or, if leave is granted, until the final determination of the matter by the High Court of Australia." "I dismiss the defendants' notice of motion filed on 25 November...