Natural Resources Access Regulator v Harris; Natural Resources Access Regulator v Timmins [2020] NSWLEC 104

Natural Resources Access Regulator v Harris; Natural Resources Access Regulator v Timmins [2020] NSWLEC 104

The Prosecutor failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, at the relevant times, Pumps 3, 4 and 5 had metering equipment (specifically MACE meters and analogue engine hour meters as pleaded) installed, connected, and being used to measure flow as required under s 91I(2) of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). Mere physical presence of MACE meters did not satisfy the statutory definition of 'metered work' as the evidence showed they were not operating or used, and new digital engine hour meters (not alleged to be faulty) were being used instead. There was no statutory or approval requirement that the non-functioning MACE meters be the relevant metering equipment. As the pleaded...

Parties
Prosecutor: Natural Resources Access Regulator; Defendant: Peter Harris; Defendant: Justin Timmins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment (final Orders After Trial)
Outcome
All charges dismissed.
Legal Topics
Water Management Offences, Statutory Interpretation, Strict Liability Offences, Evidence in Criminal Trials, Metering Requirements Under Water Management Act
Environmental Law Water Law Criminal Law Water Management Offences Statutory Interpretation Strict Liability Offences Evidence in Criminal Trials Metering Requirements Under Water Management Act

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natural Resources Access Regulator

Prosecutor

Peter Harris

Defendant

Justin Timmins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment (final Orders After Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants took water by means of metered work while its metering equipment was not operating or not operating properly contrary to s 91I(2) of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether metering equipment was installed and used at the relevant time
  3. 3 Whether the lack of functioning metering equipment constituted an offence under the section

Ratio Decidendi

The Prosecutor failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, at the relevant times, Pumps 3, 4 and 5 had metering equipment (specifically MACE meters and analogue engine hour meters as pleaded) installed, connected, and being used to measure flow as required under s 91I(2) of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). Mere physical presence of MACE meters did not satisfy the statutory definition of 'metered work' as the evidence showed they were not operating or used, and new digital engine hour meters (not alleged to be faulty) were being used instead. There was no statutory or approval requirement that the non-functioning MACE meters be the relevant metering equipment. As the pleaded...

Court Disposition

All charges dismissed.

Orders

  • In proceedings nos 18/238837, 18/238838, 18/238839, the charges against Peter Harris are dismissed.
  • In proceedings nos 18/238877, 18/238878, 18/238879, the charges against Justin Timmins are dismissed.