John Raymond Burrell v. Nick Jacenko [1998] NSWLEC 131

John Raymond Burrell v. Nick Jacenko [1998] NSWLEC 131

The tender of the planting design during cross-examination did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to make a no case submission. Although there was no evidence that the defendant, if treated as a secondary participant, knew of the permanent conservation order, there was direct evidence capable of supporting vicarious liability because the alleged acts were undertaken under the defendant's direction and personal supervision. Accordingly, there was a case the defendant was required to meet on vicarious liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Alleged Contravention of S 57 and S 156 of the Heritage Act 1977 / No Case Submission at the Close of the Prosecution's Case
Outcome
No case submission not accepted; the defendant was required to meet the case on the issue of vicarious liability.
Legal Topics
['permanent Conservation Order' 'removal of Trees and Vegetation' 'no Case Submission' 'secondary Participation' 'strict Liability' 'vicarious Liability']
['environmental Law' 'heritage Law' 'criminal Law'] ['permanent Conservation Order' 'removal of Trees and Vegetation' 'no Case Submission' 'secondary Participation' 'strict Liability' 'vicarious Liability']

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

Prosecution for Alleged Contravention of S 57 and S 156 of the Heritage Act 1977 / No Case Submission at the Close of the Prosecution's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant lost the opportunity to make a no case submission by tendering a planting design during cross-examination of a prosecution witness' "Whether there was evidence capable of proving the defendant's liability as a secondary participant for removal of trees and vegetation from land subject to a permanent conservation order" 'Whether the defendant could be vicariously liable as a principal offender for acts of persons working under his direction and control in an offence of strict liability under s 57 of the Heritage Act 1977']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender of the planting design during cross-examination did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to make a no case submission. Although there was no evidence that the defendant, if treated as a secondary participant, knew of the permanent conservation order, there was direct evidence capable of supporting vicarious liability because the alleged acts were undertaken under the defendant's direction and personal supervision. Accordingly, there was a case the defendant was required to meet on vicarious liability.

Court Disposition

No case submission not accepted; the defendant was required to meet the case on the issue of vicarious liability.

Orders

  • []