NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 153 LGERA 278
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Michael Norvill v Kevin Stokes [2006] NSWLEC 622
PROSECUTOR Michael Norvill (for the Department of Natural Resources) PARTIES : DEFENDANT Kevin John Stokes
FILE NUMBER(S) : 50058 of 2005
CORAM: Jagot J
KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- Clearing State protected land - whether satisfied that land was State protected land - whether satisfied land cleared other than in accordance with development consent - exemptions and exclusions - onus of proof
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Pt 4, s 26(1)(e), s 76A Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Pt 16 Evidence Act 1995 s 79, s 86, s 146 LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 Pt 6 r 2 Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 cl 3(2) of Sch 4, cl 4(2) of Sch 4, s 4(1), s 15(3), s 15(4), s 21(2)(a), s 22, s 66 Soil Conservation Act 1938 s 21AB, s 21B State Environmental Planning Policy No 46 - Protection and Management of Native Vegetation Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 75 r 3J
Baiada and Others v Waste Recycling and Processing Service of NSW (1999) 130 LGERA 52; Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67; Director General, Department of Land and Water Conservation v Bailey (2003) 136 LGERA 242; Director-General of Department of Land and Water Conservation v Greentree and Another (2003) 131 LGERA 234, 140 A Crim R 25; Director-General, Department of Land and Water Conservation v Pye [1998] NSWLEC 301; Director of Public Prosecutions v United Telecasters Sydney Limited (1990) 168 CLR 594; Environment Protection Authority v Leaghur Holdings Pty Ltd (1995) 80 A Crim R 553; Gabriel v Ah Mook (1924) 34 CLR 591; Hanwood Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Natural Resources (2005) 144 LGERA 139; CASES CITED: James Pennycook Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; President, etc., of the Shire of Braybrook v Robinson [1920] VLR 552; R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677; R v Hien Puoc Tang [2006] NSWCCA 167; Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367; The Adelaide Steamship Company Limited and Others v His Majesty the King and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (1912) 15 CLR 65; The King v Hush; Ex parte Devanny (1932) 48 CLR 487; Vitality Care Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Natural Resources [2006] NSWLEC 506; Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate