RTA v Graincorp Operations Ltd - [2010] NSWCA 317

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:
RTA v Graincorp Operations Ltd [2010] NSWCA 317

FILE NUMBER(S):
08/286120

HEARING DATE(S):
22/09/2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 December 2010

PARTIES:
The Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales - Appellant
Graincorp Operations Limited - Respodent

JUDGMENT OF:
Giles JA McColl JA Handley AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court - Common Law Division

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 13755 of 2008

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hall J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
12/11/2009

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2009] NSWSC 1204

COUNSEL:
A: Dr ARC Birch SC and T Lynch
R: JWS Stevenson SC and DA McLure

SOLICITORS:
A: Hunt & Hunt
R: Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – question of law – dismissal of prosecution case – no misdirection – no error of law.
CRIMINAL LAW – criminal negligence – based on conduct of accused not state of mind.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – evidence emerging in defence case – particulars not amended – prosecution not entitled to rely on new case outside particulars.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – prosecution bound by conduct of trial – new case not open on appeal by leave.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 56(1)(c)
Environmental Offences & Penalties Act 1989, s.6(1)
Interpretation Act 1987, s.8(b)
Road Transport (General) Act 2005, s.58(3)

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33, 162 CLR 1
EPA v Sydney Water Corporation Ltd (1997) 98 LGERA 361
McPhee v S Bennett Ltd (1935) 52 WN (NSW) 8
NSW Sugar Milling Co-operative Ltd v EPA (1992) 59 A Crim R 6

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal granted limited to paras 1 to 4 and the grounds of appeal in the draft notice of appeal.
2. Leave to appeal otherwise refused.
3. The draft notice of appeal, as amended, to be filed within 10 days.
4. Appeal dismissed with costs.
[The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

08/286120

GILES JA
McCOLL JA
HANDLEY AJA

Monday 6 December 2010

THE ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v GRAINCORP OPERATIONS LIMITED

CATCHWORDS

APPEAL – question of law – dismissal of prosecution case – no misdirection – no error of law.
CRIMINAL LAW – criminal negligence – based on conduct of accused not state of mind.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – evidence emerging in defence case – particulars not amended – prosecution not entitled to rely on new case outside particulars.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – prosecution bound by conduct of trial – new case not open on appeal…

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 RTA v Graincorp Operations Ltd

Details

AGLC: RTA v Graincorp Operations Ltd [2010] NSWCA 317
Case: [2010] NSWCA 317
Decision Date: 6 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *RTA v Graincorp Operations Ltd* concerned an appeal by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) against a decision of a lower court. The RTA sought to challenge an acquittal in criminal proceedings against Graincorp Operations Ltd. The appeal was heard by Giles and McColl JJA, and Handley AJA.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the prosecution had been wrongly prevented from relying on evidence that emerged during the defence case, and whether the prosecution was entitled to present a new case on appeal that had not been raised in the original proceedings. The court also considered whether the acquittal involved an error of law, particularly in relation to the concept of criminal negligence.

The court reasoned that while summary criminal proceedings allow for appeals on questions of law, the existence of evidence that *might* have supported certain findings did not, in itself, establish an error of law. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution was bound by the conduct of the trial and was not entitled to rely on a new case that was outside the particulars provided. Leave to appeal was granted, but only in a limited capacity, and the court refused to allow the prosecution to present a case on appeal that had not been raised at trial.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of specific paragraphs and grounds of appeal, and otherwise refused. The court ordered that the amended notice of appeal be filed within ten days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted limited to paras 1 to 4 and the grounds of appeal in the draft notice of appeal.

2. Leave to appeal otherwise refused.

3. The draft notice of appeal, as amended, to be filed within 10 days.

4. Appeal dismissed with costs.

[The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

That rule has been displaced in summary criminal proceedings, and the prosecution may challenge an acquittal on questions of law. However there are no relevant findings, and the existence of evidence which might have supported such findings does not establish an error of law or give rise to a question of law. In any event I would not grant leave to allow the prosecution to present a case in this Court that was not raised below.Conclusion In these circumstances the appropriate course is to refuse the RTA leave to raise the new case. Because of the importance of the issues leave to appeal should otherwise be given, but the appeal should be dismissed. The following orders should be made:1.Leave to appeal granted limited to paras 1 to 4 and the grounds of appeal in the draft notice of appeal.2.Leave to appeal otherwise refused.3.The draft notice of appeal, as amended, to be filed within 10 days.4.Appeal dismissed with costs.******

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.