Director-General, NSW Department of Industry & Investment v Mato Investments Pty Limited (No 4)

The defendants, Mato Investments Pty Limited and its associated directors, were charged with offences under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) in relation to the clearing of native vegetation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants challenged the validity of the charges, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had established the necessary elements of the clearing of habitat offences and the associated charges under the EPA Act. This involved examining the evidence provided by the prosecution to determine whether it was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered whether there were any procedural errors in the way the charges were laid or the evidence was presented.

The court found that the prosecution had not proven the necessary elements of the clearing of habitat offences and the associated charges under the EPA Act beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that there were significant gaps in the evidence provided by the prosecution, which meant that the defendants could not be held liable for the offences. The court also found that the prosecution had not proven that the defendants had the requisite knowledge or intent to be held liable for the offences. The court dismissed the charges against the defendants and ordered that the charges be formally dismissed.

The prosecutor requested a week to consider whether to appeal the decision, which the court allowed. The court's decision provides important guidance on the evidentiary requirements for charges under the Biodiversity Conservation Act and the EPA Act, and highlights the need for the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence to prove the necessary elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.