R v Maitland (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 167

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Maitland (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 167 Hearing dates: 28 February 2017 Date of orders: 28 February 2017 Decision date: 28 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: Refuse applications for directed verdicts of acquittal and application for Prasad direction Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether consent under s 13(4) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) was given – importance of wording – no statutory provisions imposing formal requirements

CRIMINAL LAW – application for a directed verdict on ground that letter could not amount to consent as a matter of law – mixed questions of law and fact – question whether letter capable of constituting consent under s 13(4) question of law – question whether evidence taken at its highest could amount to consent question of law – whether letter amounts to consent question of fact for jury

CRIMINAL LAW – no case submission by alleged accessory before the fact – Crown obliged to prove that accessory knew the requisite mental state of alleged principal offender – evidence taken at its highest sufficient

CRIMINAL LAW – Prasad direction – inappropriate in complex case where evidence comprised substantial quantity of documents to which the jury had not yet been taken Legislation Cited: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34 Mining Act 1992 (NSW), ss 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 368 Cases Cited: R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No. 10) [2014] NSWSC 1482 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 Obeid v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2014) 226 FCR 471; [2014] FCAFC 155 R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161 Seymour v R [2006] NSWCCA 206 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina John William Maitland (Accused) Representation: Counsel: M McHugh SC/P English (Crown) D Jordan SC/ES Kerkyasharian (Accused)