Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Kyluk Pty Limited (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 24

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Kyluk Pty Limited (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 24

The Court refused to state a case as the issues could be raised on appeal after sentence; no particular prejudice or public importance justified interruption of ongoing proceedings; and no significant saving of expense or delay was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Part Heard Sentence Hearing After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Application for stated case refused
Legal Topics
['stated Case' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'sentencing Procedure']
['criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'procedure'] ['stated Case' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'sentencing Procedure']

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

Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Part Heard Sentence Hearing After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal during part-heard sentence hearing on plea of guilty' 'Whether discretion to state a case should be exercised when the request is by the defendant' 'Whether there is prejudice, public importance or efficiency warranting a stated case before sentence']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to state a case as the issues could be raised on appeal after sentence; no particular prejudice or public importance justified interruption of ongoing proceedings; and no significant saving of expense or delay was established.

Court Disposition

Application for stated case refused

Orders

  • ["The Defendant's application for a stated case to the Court of Criminal Appeal is refused."]