Inspector Nash v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd (re Newstead) (2)

[2015] NSWDC 30

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Inspector Nash v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd (re Newstead) (2) [2015] NSWDC 30
Decision date:	05 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Kearns, DCJ
Decision:	For reasons given at [189] to [197] and [198] to [203], the prosecutor has made good her case on particular i.i. and i.iii, but not on particular i.ii. Particular i.ii, dealing with the SFM Plans, fails also for reasons set out at [154] to [162].
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	Jennifer Ann Nash, Director, Mine Safety Performance, NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services (Prosecutor) Bulga Underground Operations Pty Limited (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C Magee, instructed by Crown Solicitor for NSW (Prosecutor) Mr D Buchanan SC, instructed by Sparke Helmore (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2012/244559

Inspector Nash v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd (re Newstead) [2015] NSWDC 6

1. The parties have drawn to my attention my treatment of particulars in i.i, i.ii and i.iii and left it to me to review that treatment and apply any correction I consider appropriate under the slip rule.

2. The parties’ concern is proper. It is evident that in dealing with particulars i.i, i.ii and i.iii, I turned to further particulars or items that were set out in the prosecutor’s submissions and considered each of those items. I then failed to relate back to particulars i.i, i.ii and i.iii in my consideration of those items.

3. For reasons given at [189] to [197] and [198] to [203], the prosecutor has made good her case on particular i.i. and i.iii, but not on particular i.ii. Particular i.ii, dealing with the SFM Plans, fails also for reasons set out at [154] to [162].

**********

Decision last updated: 16 March 2015