Harris v Natural Resources Access Regulator; Timmins v Natural Resources Access Regulator [2023] NSWCCA 16

Harris v Natural Resources Access Regulator; Timmins v Natural Resources Access Regulator [2023] NSWCCA 16

The appeal was dismissed as the primary judge properly found the respondent's witnesses were not aware of the digital engine hour meters in 2015, considered the relevance of the appellants' timing of disclosure, concluded any failure to disclose was inadvertent and did not amount to improper conduct, and that proceedings commenced within the statutory time limit did not constitute unreasonable delay.

Parties
Appellant: Peter James Harris; Appellant: Justin Timmins; Respondent: Natural Resources Access Regulator
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Award Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Prosecution, Costs, Land and Environment Court, Water Management Act 2000
Criminal Law Summary Prosecution Costs Land and Environment Court Water Management Act 2000

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Harris

Appellant

Justin Timmins

Appellant

Natural Resources Access Regulator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Award Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in finding prosecution witnesses were not aware of digital engine hour meters
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in considering the appellants' failure to alert the prosecutor to the digital engine hour meters
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred regarding breach of prosecutorial duty of disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed as the primary judge properly found the respondent's witnesses were not aware of the digital engine hour meters in 2015, considered the relevance of the appellants' timing of disclosure, concluded any failure to disclose was inadvertent and did not amount to improper conduct, and that proceedings commenced within the statutory time limit did not constitute unreasonable delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appeal be dismissed.