State Pollution Control Commission v Sydney Harbour Tunnel Company Limited [1989] NSWLEC 197

State Pollution Control Commission v Sydney Harbour Tunnel Company Limited [1989] NSWLEC 197

The State Pollution Control Commission Act summonses should be heard separately to avoid any possible unfairness or prejudice from mutually inconsistent charges. The Noise Control Act prosecution did not place the defendant in double jeopardy because it charged a separate and distinct offence, even though arising from the same facts. The words "cause or increase" in the Noise Control Act summons were not duplicitous because, consistently with authority on similar wording, "increase" was merely an application of the notion of cause rather than a separate offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 1989
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions Under the State Pollution Control Commission Act and the Noise Control Act / Notices of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Election, and Challenging the Noise Control Act Summons for Double Jeopardy and Duplicity
Outcome
Notices of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['state Pollution Control Commission Act Prosecutions' 'noise Control Act Prosecution' 'double Jeopardy' 'duplicity' 'election Between Mutually Inconsistent Charges' 'separate Hearing of Summonses']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['state Pollution Control Commission Act Prosecutions' 'noise Control Act Prosecution' 'double Jeopardy' 'duplicity' 'election Between Mutually Inconsistent Charges' 'separate Hearing of Summonses']

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

Prosecutions Under the State Pollution Control Commission Act and the Noise Control Act / Notices of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Election, and Challenging the Noise Control Act Summons for Double Jeopardy and Duplicity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecutor must elect between mutually inconsistent State Pollution Control Commission Act summonses before the hearing commences or may defer election until the close of the prosecution case.' 'Whether the summonses under the State Pollution Control Commission Act should be heard separately to avoid unfairness, injustice or prejudice to the defendant.' 'Whether the Noise Control Act prosecution places the defendant in double jeopardy because it arises out of the same incident as the State Pollution Control Commission Act prosecutions.' 'Whether the Noise Control Act summons alleging that the defendant "caused or increased" the emission of noise is bad for duplicity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The State Pollution Control Commission Act summonses should be heard separately to avoid any possible unfairness or prejudice from mutually inconsistent charges. The Noise Control Act prosecution did not place the defendant in double jeopardy because it charged a separate and distinct offence, even though arising from the same facts. The words "cause or increase" in the Noise Control Act summons were not duplicitous because, consistently with authority on similar wording, "increase" was merely an application of the notion of cause rather than a separate offence.

Court Disposition

Notices of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Summons No. 50063 of 1989 be heard separately from summons No. 50065 of 1989.' "The Court declined to take any action upon summons No. 50064 of 1989 in relation to the defendant's submission of double jeopardy." 'The Court found summons No. 50064 of 1989 was not duplex and declined to take any step upon the...