Cessnock City Council v Courtney (No. 4) [2004] NSWLEC 489

Cessnock City Council v Courtney (No. 4) [2004] NSWLEC 489

The prosecution evidence, including evidence from council officers and the earthmoving contractor, was capable of supporting the charge and an inference that the works were connected with siting or constructing a house on the hill. The evidence was not so lacking in weight or reliability that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict, so both the no case to answer application and the Prasad application failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / At the Conclusion of the Prosecution Evidence, Applications by the Defendant for a No Case to Answer Direction And, Alternatively, a Prasad Direction
Outcome
Both applications refused; each application fails.
Legal Topics
['development Without Consent' 'no Case to Answer' 'prasad Direction' 'unsafe or Unsatisfactory Evidence']
['environmental Planning Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['development Without Consent' 'no Case to Answer' 'prasad Direction' 'unsafe or Unsatisfactory Evidence']

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 / At the Conclusion of the Prosecution Evidence, Applications by the Defendant for a No Case to Answer Direction And, Alternatively, a Prasad Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was no case for the defendant to answer at the close of the prosecution evidence.' 'Whether the prosecution evidence was so lacking in weight and reliability that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.' 'Whether the evidence could establish that the earthworks were for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house rather than for agricultural or exempt development.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution evidence, including evidence from council officers and the earthmoving contractor, was capable of supporting the charge and an inference that the works were connected with siting or constructing a house on the hill. The evidence was not so lacking in weight or reliability that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict, so both the no case to answer application and the Prasad application failed.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused; each application fails.

Orders

  • ['The no case to answer application fails.' 'The Prasad application fails.']