Cessnock City Council v Courtney (No. 5) [2004] NSWLEC 497

Cessnock City Council v Courtney (No. 5) [2004] NSWLEC 497

The further evidence in exhibits 17 and N was at its highest neutral and did not sufficiently affect the prosecution case. Because there was evidence before the Court adduced by the prosecution, and whether it met the criminal standard of proof was for later determination, it would be an error of law to direct that the proceedings be dismissed under the Prasad principle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for an Alleged Offence Against S 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Further Application for a Prasad Direction That the Proceedings Be Dismissed
Outcome
Further Prasad challenge rejected; application to dismiss the proceedings refused.
Legal Topics
['development Without Development Consent' 'prasad Direction' 'no Case Application' 'sufficiency and Reliability of Prosecution Evidence']
['environmental Planning Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['development Without Development Consent' 'prasad Direction' 'no Case Application' 'sufficiency and Reliability of Prosecution 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for an Alleged Offence Against S 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Further Application for a Prasad Direction That the Proceedings Be Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in light of additional evidence adduced after the earlier Prasad challenge, the prosecution evidence was so lacking in weight and reliability that the proceedings should be dismissed.' 'Whether the prosecution evidence could support a finding that the defendant intended to use the cleared land for the proposed siting and construction of a dwelling house.']

Ratio Decidendi

The further evidence in exhibits 17 and N was at its highest neutral and did not sufficiently affect the prosecution case. Because there was evidence before the Court adduced by the prosecution, and whether it met the criminal standard of proof was for later determination, it would be an error of law to direct that the proceedings be dismissed under the Prasad principle.

Court Disposition

Further Prasad challenge rejected; application to dismiss the proceedings refused.

Orders

  • ['The challenge pursuant to the Prasad principle is rejected.']