Citation: [2000] NSWCCA 65
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 9 March 2000
Judge(s): Sheller JA, Dowd J, James J
Background
A pastoral company and three individual appellants were convicted in the Land and Environment Court on 29 April 1998, following proceedings brought by the Director General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The charges related to matters within that regulator's jurisdiction, though the precise nature of the alleged offences is not detailed in the available judgment text.
The appellants appealed their convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Separately, consent orders had also been made in the Land and Environment Court on 16 April 1998, which formed part of the broader dispute between the parties.
Legal Issues
- Whether the convictions entered in the Land and Environment Court on 29 April 1998 were sound and should be upheld on appeal
- Whether the related consent orders made on 16 April 1998 (and further orders of 29 April 1998) should stand
- What legal status, if any, the earlier consent agreement between the pastoral company and the prosecutor retained
Decision
When the appeals were called for hearing, senior counsel for the prosecutor and respondent announced that the prosecution conceded the appeals should succeed. No contested hearing was required, and the Court moved directly to making agreed orders.
The Court quashed all four convictions and directed that verdicts of acquittal be entered on each charge. The related orders of the Land and Environment Court, made both on 16 April and 29 April 1998, were set aside by consent.
The Court also noted, without any admission of liability by the appellants, that the parties agreed the earlier "Consent Orders" document dated 16 April 1998 constituted a legally enforceable agreement between the pastoral company and the prosecutor, to operate from the date of the appeal hearing.
On costs, the Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of both the appeal and the underlying Land and Environment Court proceedings.
Orders Made
- Appeals allowed
- Convictions of 29 April 1998 quashed
- On each charge, a judgment and verdict of acquittal entered
- Orders of the Land and Environment Court of 29 April 1998 set aside
- Consent orders of 16 April 1998 set aside
- Each party to pay its own costs of the appeals and the Land and Environment Court proceedings
- Court noted (without admission of liability) that the "Consent Orders" document dated 16 April 1998 constitutes a legally enforceable agreement between the pastoral company appellant and the prosecutor, operating from 9 March 2000
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed all four convictions after the prosecutor formally conceded at the hearing that the appeals should succeed, making a contested hearing unnecessary.
- A prosecution concession that convictions cannot be sustained is sufficient for the Court of Criminal Appeal to enter verdicts of acquittal on each charge.
- Consent orders made in earlier proceedings can be set aside by agreement of the parties when an appeal is resolved, even where those orders formed part of a broader contested matter.
- Separate from the quashing of convictions, the court gave legal effect to a pre-existing agreement between the parties by noting its enforceability as a binding agreement, operating from the date of the appeal orders.
- Where convictions are quashed following a prosecutorial concession rather than a fully contested hearing, a costs order requiring each party to bear its own expenses is available, and was applied here to both the appeal and the original proceedings.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
The judgment text does not cite specific legislation or cases. The proceedings arose in the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court and involved the Director General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation as prosecutor, suggesting the charges related to land or water management legislation, but no specific statutory provisions are identified in the available text.