Sutherland Shire Council v Signorelli Investments Pty Ltd and Anor [2000] NSWLEC 77

Sutherland Shire Council v Signorelli Investments Pty Ltd and Anor [2000] NSWLEC 77

The prosecutor did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that either defendant carried out development for the purposes of a car park or stormwater drainage on Lot 498 during May and June 1999. Although car park works had been undertaken progressively between at least 1996 and August 1999, there was no direct evidence of what work, if any, occurred in the charged period, the evidence did not clearly distinguish works on council land from works on private land, and reasonable hypotheses remained that any work in that period was landscaping or road-related work not requiring consent or not prohibited. The prosecutor therefore failed to make out a prima facie case requiring any answer by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing on Summonses
Outcome
All defendants found not guilty; each summons dismissed; prosecutor ordered to pay the respective defendants' costs, with leave to apply in respect of the costs orders within seven days.
Legal Topics
['car Parking Development on Public Recreation Land' 'stormwater Management Works' 'development Without Consent' 'prohibited Development' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'failure of Accused to Give Evidence' 'failure to Call Expected Witnesses']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['car Parking Development on Public Recreation Land' 'stormwater Management Works' 'development Without Consent' 'prohibited Development' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'failure of Accused to Give Evidence' 'failure to Call Expected Witnesses']

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 Offences Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Judgment After Hearing on Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether either defendant carried out development for the purposes of a car park on Lot 498 between May and June 1999 contrary to s 76A or s 76B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'Whether either defendant carried out prohibited development for the purposes of disposal of untreated stormwater on Lot 498 between May and June 1999 contrary to s 76B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cl 11 of the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 - Georges River Catchment.' 'Whether the prosecutor proved beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the relevant development occurred during the period particularised in the summonses.' "Whether the defendants could rely on the prosecutor's failure to call witnesses who might have given direct evidence of development during the relevant period."]

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutor did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that either defendant carried out development for the purposes of a car park or stormwater drainage on Lot 498 during May and June 1999. Although car park works had been undertaken progressively between at least 1996 and August 1999, there was no direct evidence of what work, if any, occurred in the charged period, the evidence did not clearly distinguish works on council land from works on private land, and reasonable hypotheses remained that any work in that period was landscaping or road-related work not requiring consent or not prohibited. The prosecutor therefore failed to make out a prima facie case requiring any answer by the...

Court Disposition

All defendants found not guilty; each summons dismissed; prosecutor ordered to pay the respective defendants' costs, with leave to apply in respect of the costs orders within seven days.

Orders

  • ['In matter No 50091 of 1999 the defendant, Signorelli Investments Pty Ltd is found not guilty.' 'In matter No 50091 of 1999 the summons is dismissed.' 'In matter No 50092 of 1999 the defendant, Monte Cristo Lounge Pty Ltd is found not guilty.' 'In matter No 50092 of 1999 the summons is dismissed.' 'In matter No...