Hornsby Shire Council v Henlong Property Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 16

Hornsby Shire Council v Henlong Property Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 16

Dr Smith's note was admissible because it was responsive to Dr Robertson's detailed Statement of Evidence and concerned relevant matters; Dr Robertson had already prepared a detailed response; despite the absence of a direction for reply evidence, there was no material unfair prejudice to the defendant; and the material was not unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing and would not cause undue waste of time under ss 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings Concerning an Environmental Offence / Prosecutor's Application to Rely Upon Further Expert Evidence on the First Day of a Sentence Hearing After the Defendant Pleaded Guilty
Outcome
Prosecutor's application to rely upon further expert evidence allowed.
Legal Topics
['tender of Expert Reply Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Evidence in Sentencing' 'environmental Offence Sentencing']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Law' 'evidence' 'environmental Planning and Assessment'] ['tender of Expert Reply Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Evidence in Sentencing' 'environmental Offence Sentencing']

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 Criminal Proceedings Concerning an Environmental Offence / Prosecutor's Application to Rely Upon Further Expert Evidence on the First Day of a Sentence Hearing After the Defendant Pleaded Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the prosecutor should be permitted to tender Dr Smith's note responding to Dr Robertson's expert evidence." "Whether Dr Smith's note was relevant to the sentencing proceedings." "Whether tendering Dr Smith's note would unfairly prejudice the defendant or should be rejected under ss 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Smith's note was admissible because it was responsive to Dr Robertson's detailed Statement of Evidence and concerned relevant matters; Dr Robertson had already prepared a detailed response; despite the absence of a direction for reply evidence, there was no material unfair prejudice to the defendant; and the material was not unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing and would not cause undue waste of time under ss 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Prosecutor's application to rely upon further expert evidence allowed.

Orders

  • ["Dr Smith's note was admitted into evidence as Exhibit B."]