Environment Protection Authority v Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 97

Environment Protection Authority v Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 97

The court declined to certify the recusal decision as a proper one for determination on appeal under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act, exercising its discretion based on established principles, the lack of any appealable error, and the undesirability of further delay. The court also refused a stay, as the defendant did not demonstrate that its appeal would be rendered nugatory, that it would suffer prejudice, or that any injustice would result from refusal. The strong presumption against fragmenting criminal proceedings supported refusal of both applications.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications—application for S 5 F(3)(b) Certification and for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['recusal of Judge' 'appeals—interlocutory Judgments' 'stays of Proceedings']
['criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['recusal of Judge' 'appeals—interlocutory Judgments' 'stays of Proceedings']

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 / Interlocutory Applications—application for S 5 F(3)(b) Certification and for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the recusal decision is an 'interlocutory judgment or order' within the meaning of s 5F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)" 'Whether discretion should be exercised to certify the recusal decision for appeal under s 5F(3)(b)' 'Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending determination of the appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to certify the recusal decision as a proper one for determination on appeal under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act, exercising its discretion based on established principles, the lack of any appealable error, and the undesirability of further delay. The court also refused a stay, as the defendant did not demonstrate that its appeal would be rendered nugatory, that it would suffer prejudice, or that any injustice would result from refusal. The strong presumption against fragmenting criminal proceedings supported refusal of both applications.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • ["The defendant's application for certification under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) is dismissed." "The defendant's application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination by the Court of Criminal Appeal is dismissed."]