Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Namoi Valley Farms Pty Ltd (No 4) [2022] NSWLEC 57

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Namoi Valley Farms Pty Ltd (No 4) [2022] NSWLEC 57

The representations in paragraphs 1-6 of the s 67(1) notice fairly reflected the statutory notice and the solicitors' response, and the Defendant's criticisms based on the attached map did not create unfair prejudice. The representations in paragraphs 7-22, although affected by limitations concerning precise...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Prosecution Procedural Ruling / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Representations in a Notice Under S 67(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
The representations in the s 67(1) notice were admitted, together with the invoice dated 17.12.13; the final order was to be discussed with the parties.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Representations' 'unavailable Witness' 'hearsay Exceptions' 'section 67 Notice' 'unfair Prejudice and Probative Value' 'voir Dire']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'environmental Law'] ['admissibility of Representations' 'unavailable Witness' 'hearsay Exceptions' 'section 67 Notice' 'unfair Prejudice and Probative Value' 'voir Dire']

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

Class 5 Criminal Prosecution Procedural Ruling / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Representations in a Notice Under S 67(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether representations in the Prosecutor's s 67(1) notice arising from a statutory notice dated 22 July 2019 and the response by Mr Harris' solicitors should be admitted." 'Whether representations in the s 67(1) notice arising from the recorded interview on 6 August 2019 should be admitted.' 'Whether admission of the s 67(1) notice in whole or part would give rise to unfair prejudice to the Defendant that outweighed its probative value under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether uncertainty arising from maps and questions about areas of interest meant the representations were misleading or should not be admitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The representations in paragraphs 1-6 of the s 67(1) notice fairly reflected the statutory notice and the solicitors' response, and the Defendant's criticisms based on the attached map did not create unfair prejudice. The representations in paragraphs 7-22, although affected by limitations concerning precise location and timing and by the exclusion of reliance on the maps to prove areas of interest, fairly reflected the corrected transcript and had potential probative value. Any limitations could be addressed in submissions as to weight. Admission of the s 67(1) notice and the invoice dated 17.12.13 did not give rise to unfair prejudice outweighing probative value under s 137 of the...

Court Disposition

The representations in the s 67(1) notice were admitted, together with the invoice dated 17.12.13; the final order was to be discussed with the parties.

Orders

  • ['The representations in the s 67(1) notice can be admitted, together with the invoice dated 17.12.13.' 'The final order will be discussed with the parties.']