R v Maitland (No 5) - [2017] NSWSC 167

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Maitland (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 167
Hearing dates: 28 February 2017
Date of orders: 28 February 2017
Decision date: 28 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
Refuse applications for directed verdicts of acquittal and application for Prasad direction

Catchwords:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether consent under s 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) was given – importance of wording – no statutory provisions imposing formal requirements

CRIMINAL LAW – application for a directed verdict on ground that letter could not amount to consent as a matter of law – mixed questions of law and fact – question whether letter capable of constituting consent under s 13(4) question of law – question whether evidence taken at its highest could amount to consent question of law – whether letter amounts to consent question of fact for jury

CRIMINAL LAW – no case submission by alleged accessory before the fact – Crown obliged to prove that accessory knew the requisite mental state of alleged principal offender – evidence taken at its highest sufficient
CRIMINAL LAW – Prasad direction – inappropriate in complex case where evidence comprised substantial quantity of documents to which the jury had not yet been taken
Legislation Cited:
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34
Mining Act 1992 (NSW), ss 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 368

Cases Cited:
R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No. 10) [2014] NSWSC 1482
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473
May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Obeid v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2014) 226 FCR 471; [2014] FCAFC 155
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
Seymour v R [2006] NSWCCA 206

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
John William Maitland (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
M McHugh SC/P English (Crown)
D Jordan SC/ES Kerkyasharian (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Bob Whyburn Solicitor (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/59940; 2015/59990

Judgment

Introduction

At the close of the Crown case, Mr Jordan SC, who appears with Mr Kerkyasharian on behalf of the accused Maitland, made the following applications:

For a directed verdict in relation to count 2 on the basis that the Crown cannot, as a matter of law, prove the alleged underlying conduct: namely, that the accused Macdonald granted consent to Doyles Creek Mining Pty Ltd (DCM) to apply for an exploration licence on or about 21 August 2008;

For a directed verdict in relation to counts 2 and 4 on the basis that the evidence, taken at its highest, would be insufficient to establish the accused Maitland’s knowledge of an essential fact: namely the mental element of the charges against the accused Macdonald;

In the alternative to (2), for a Prasad direction.

Before addressing these applications, I propose to set out, where relevant, the indictment, and also the relevant legislative framework.

The indictment

The accused Maitland is charged with being…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Maitland (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2017] NSWSC 167
Case: [2017] NSWSC 167
Decision Date: 28 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Maitland (No 5), the respondents, Maitland and another individual, faced criminal charges related to the alleged improper granting of consent under section 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The core of the dispute involved whether the respondents had legally granted consent as required by the statute, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the term "consent" within the context of the Mining Act. Additionally, the case examined the requisite mental state of an alleged accessory before the fact, as well as the appropriateness of a Prasad direction in light of the substantial quantity of documentary evidence involved.

The court was tasked with determining whether the question of consent was a matter of law or fact. It concluded that the determination of whether the letter in question could constitute consent under section 13(4) was a question of law, while the issue of whether the evidence, when taken at its highest, could amount to consent was a question of fact for the jury. The court also addressed whether the Crown needed to prove that the alleged accessory knew the requisite mental state of the principal offender, finding that the evidence taken at its highest was sufficient for the Crown's burden.

The court further examined the appropriateness of a Prasad direction in this complex case, which involved a substantial quantity of documents. It held that such a direction was inappropriate given the circumstances, as the jury had not yet been taken through the documents. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for a balanced approach to the evidence presented and the proper judicial process.

The final outcome of the case saw the court dismissing the no-case submissions by the respondents, affirming that the Crown's evidence was sufficient to proceed to trial on the charges of improper consent and accessory before the fact. The court's decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation, the requisite mental state in criminal cases, and the appropriate application of Prasad directions in complex evidentiary contexts.

Orders