Peter James Harris and Jane Maree Harris v WaterNSW

The appeal was brought by Peter James Harris and Jane Maree Harris against a conviction imposed by a lower court. The appellants were found guilty of contravening a condition of an approval issued under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) by taking water from the Darling River when the flow of the river was equal to or less than a stipulated flow. The appellants challenged the conviction on several grounds, including that the primary judge erred in finding that all elements of the charge were established, that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof, and that the trial judge erred in accepting evidence of a conversation between the first appellant and an officer of the respondent.

The court considered whether the primary judge erred in finding that all elements of the charge were established. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the contravention of the condition of the approval, and that the primary judge did not err in finding all elements of the charge were established. The court also considered whether the trial judge reversed the onus of proof, and found that there was no such error. The court held that the onus of proof remained with the appellants throughout the trial, and that the trial judge did not err in this regard.

The court further considered whether the trial judge erred in accepting evidence of a conversation between the first appellant and an officer of the respondent. The court found that such evidence was properly admitted, as it was not hearsay and did not involve reaching any conclusion or forming any judgment by applying a process of reasoning from the facts observed. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of measurements of flow rate of the Darling River which had been taken by officers of the respondent. The court found that such evidence was not opinion evidence, and was properly admitted. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld. The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's handling of evidence, and that the conviction was properly established. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the conviction of the appellants be upheld.