Bentley v Gordon and Ors

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year or both.

5 The application for leave is opposed. Pursuant to s 68(1) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 the Court has power at any stage of proceedings to order any amendments be made which are "necessary in the interests of justice". 6 Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ("the Criminal Procedure Act") provides that "an indictment may not be amended after being presented except by the prosecutor with either the leave of the Court or the consent of the accused". Section 176(1)(b) of the NP&W Act provides that notwithstanding anything in the Criminal Procedure Act proceedings for an offence against the NP&W Act must be commenced within two years after the date of commission of the offence. Part 10 r 2 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 permits amendments to be made after the expiry of a relevant period of limitation, unless contrary to any law to do so. 7 The defendants submit that the amendments, if allowed, would lead to duplicitous or otherwise uncertain charges. They say that if the prosecutor wishes to pursue the matters now sought to be raised by the amendments, it would be necessary for separate charges to be brought in respect of each alleged act. It is acknowledged by the prosecutor that the statutory limitation for the institution of any fresh prosecutions arising out of the offences has now passed, since the charges allege that the conduct relied on occurred between 1 August 2001 and 7 December 2001. 8 The prosecutor has referred the Court to various authorities which have dealt with the issue of duplicitous charges, for example Montgomery v Stewart (1966-1967) 116 CLR 220 and Khaled Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341. The defendants have referred the Court to several decisions especially that of Kirby J of the High Court of Australia in Walsh v Tattersall (1996-1997) 188 CLR 77. The defendants submit that His Honour's judgment is of the utmost significance since it has been referred to and adopted by the New South Wales Criminal Appeal in Abdoula Khouzame & Samson Saliba v R (1999) 108 A Crim R 170 and by the learned Chief Justice of New South Wales in Tony Giam v R (1999) 104 A Crim R 416, especially at p 420. 9 The Court has heard extensive submissions and has had the benefit of written submissions. Having considered the submissions the Court considers that it is able to provide its decision in an ex tempore judgment.

10 The Court has considered the observations in Kirby J in Walsh v Tattersall (especially between p 110 and p 112) which the Court accepts is the current law in relation to pleadings in criminal matters. Before stating the relevant principles, Kirby J made it clear that much depends upon the nature of the offence when considering the formulation of charges of a criminal nature: see p 109 of his Honour's judgment. 11 In the current proceedings the charges relate to a specific issue, namely whether habitat destruction has occurred resulting from the acts of the defendants. Whether that damage was caused by slashing or clearing or by some other method is a matter for particulars and for evidence. By correspondence the defendants' solicitor asked the prosecutor whether it is the prosecutor's case that each of slashing vegetation or clearing vegetation or crushing vegetation or construction of access tracks was of itself the cause of the damage to the habitat. The prosecutor has confirmed that any one of those acts is relied upon in support of the charges. 12 The Court was referred to the decision in McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (No 2) (2000-2002) 54 NSWLR 39. In those proceedings there had been a failure of the prosecutor at the initial stages to specify the act which was said to cause the pollution of waters. The difference between those proceedings and the proceedings now before the Court is that s 16(1) of the Clean Waters Act 1970 (now repealed) specified that a person shall not pollute any waters. Such pollution could occur in various ways as itemised in the statute. Spigelman CJ found that both the act of polluting and resultant pollution were essential ingredients of the offence under s 16. As observed by Ipp AJA at p 44, the charge referred to the pollution, but not to the act of polluting. Accordingly the summons did not identify an act of polluting, which was an essential factual ingredient of the offence. 13 The Court was also referred to Johnson v Miller (1937-1938) 59 CLR 467. In those proceedings the prosecution failed to identify which of numerous persons could have participated in the offence referred to in the supply of liquor. That decision is again factually distinguishable from the present circumstances. 14 The Court is satisfied that the proposed amendments relate to the manner in which the damage is alleged to have occurred. The offence alleged against each defendant is stated to be a breach of s 118D of the NP&W Act, namely that damage has been caused to the habitat of a threatened species. It is the resultant damage by the offender which creates the offence, as distinct from the conduct which causes the damage. It follows that if more than one activity resulted in damage, it is unnecessary that separate charges be formulated for each different activity. 15 The defendants' counsel also referred to the example of continuing offences. Such offences are separate and distinct from the nature of the charge which has been instituted against each of the defendants. The legislation would be quite unworkable if separate summons were required for each and every act said to be involved in the resultant damage to the habitat, and s 118D(1) NP&W Act does not contemplate that such conduct should be the subject of separate charges. 16 For these reasons the Court finds that there is no duplicity if leave is granted to amend in the manner sought. Accordingly the Court grants leave to the prosecutor to amend the summonses in respect of proceedings 50069 of 2003, 50071 of 2003, 50073 of 2003, 50075 of 2003, 50077 of 2003 and 50080 of 2003 by the deletion of the words "slashing or clearing vegetation" as it appears in para 1 of each summons and the substitution of the words "slashing, clearing and/or crushing vegetation and/or constructing access tracks" and the deletion of the word "and" between the words "42613" and "Lot 4" in para 1 of each summons and the substitution of the words "and/or". 17 Since costs have not been argued the costs of this motion are to be reserved and are to be considered at the hearing of the proceedings.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.