Inspector Pile v Sutherland

ex tempore Judgment 1The defendant in these proceedings has by notice of motion sought to have them stayed as an abuse of possess. The basis is that by reason of concurrent proceedings taken against the defendant in the local court at Mudgee alleging a breach of section 14 of the Home Building Act (1989) the defendant is exposed to two sets of proceedings which are the same, or essentially the same. 2It is asserted on behalf of the defendant that this enables him to raise a plea in bar to these proceedings. The relevant principles are set out in the decision of the High Court of Australia in Pearce v Regina (1998) 194 CLR 610. 3In passages occurring at paragraphs 18, 19, and 24 of that judgment, it is clear that the joint decision of McHugh, Hayne and Callinan JJ focuses attention on the essential elements of each of the offences which need to be compared to determine whether they are identical, or essentially identical. A plea in bar may then be brought. 4The defendant's outline of argument did not deal with the relevant principles nor did they analyse the elements of the respective proceedings to assist the Court in determining whether a plea in bar might exist in the circumstances of these proceedings. 5The prosecutor's written submissions does refer to the relevant principles and contains an analysis of the elements of each of the offences expressed in a clear and concise manner. These submissions demonstrate conclusively why the defendant's motion must fail. 6I am content to adopt and apply the prosecutor's submissions as my reasons for judgment, not because I am unwilling to express my reasons for myself but because I doubt whether I can improve on them. They are appended to and will form part of my reasons for judgment. 7The defendant's motion is dismissed. Costs are reserved.