The Council of the City of Sydney v Trico Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 75

The Council of the City of Sydney v Trico Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 75

The Court held that s 247K(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 does not empower the Court to order the defendant to brief an expert and serve an expert report by a prescribed date; the obligation to disclose arises only when such a report exists, and ongoing disclosure obligations under s 247O suffice. Fundamental rights of the accused should not be abrogated further than the precise language of the statute allows.

Parties
Prosecutor: The Council of the City of Sydney; Defendant: Trico Constructions Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Prosecution / Pre Trial Procedural Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Disclosure, Expert Evidence, Accused's Right to Silence, Case Management
Criminal Law Environmental Law Criminal Procedure Pre Trial Disclosure Expert Evidence Accused's Right to Silence Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Council of the City of Sydney

Prosecutor

Trico Constructions Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Class 5 Prosecution / Pre Trial Procedural Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court can impose on the defendant a timetable for obtaining and disclosing expert evidence under s 247K(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986
  2. 2 Construction of pre-trial disclosure provisions that abrogate the accused's right to silence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that s 247K(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 does not empower the Court to order the defendant to brief an expert and serve an expert report by a prescribed date; the obligation to disclose arises only when such a report exists, and ongoing disclosure obligations under s 247O suffice. Fundamental rights of the accused should not be abrogated further than the precise language of the statute allows.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Court declines to make the direction and/or finding sought by the prosecutor.
  • Each party's costs of this hearing are costs in the cause.