Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Jack & Bill Issa Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 230

Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Jack & Bill Issa Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 230

As Mr Mura's evidence in chief was unfavourable to the prosecutor and a prior inconsistent statement existed regarding the purpose of the cheque payments, the statutory power under s 38(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 was enlivened and leave was granted to cross-examine him on the topic.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Application During Examination in Chief
Outcome
Leave granted to prosecutor to cross-examine witness under s 38(1) of Evidence Act 1995
Legal Topics
['leave to Cross Examine Own Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'offence of Clearing Native Vegetation']
['evidence Law' 'environmental Law'] ['leave to Cross Examine Own Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'offence of Clearing Native Vegetation']

Source-derived case record

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 / Interlocutory Application During Examination in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should grant leave to the prosecutor under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 to question a prosecution witness as though cross-examining' 'Application of s 38(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 in relation to unfavourable evidence' 'Relevance of prior inconsistent statement concerning the purpose of cheque payments for land clearing']

Ratio Decidendi

As Mr Mura's evidence in chief was unfavourable to the prosecutor and a prior inconsistent statement existed regarding the purpose of the cheque payments, the statutory power under s 38(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 was enlivened and leave was granted to cross-examine him on the topic.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to prosecutor to cross-examine witness under s 38(1) of Evidence Act 1995

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the prosecutor under s 38(1) to question Mr Mura, as though the prosecutor were cross-examining him, about the topic of on whose behalf the cheques were paid.']