learning-from-past-mistakes-tips-for-local-government-prosecutions

Learn­ing from past mis­takes – tips for local gov­ern­ment pros­e­cu­tions

Learning from past mistakes – tips for local government prosecutions

 

A suc­cess­ful pros­e­cu­tion requires care­ful and con­sid­ered action to be tak­en by pros­e­cu­tors from the ini­tial inves­ti­ga­tion stages, through to the final stages of the enforce­ment process. There are a num­ber of exist­ing guide­lines which pro­vide help­ful infor­ma­tion on some of the key prin­ci­ples and process­es that local enforce­ment author­i­ties should refer to when exer­cis­ing their enforce­ment pow­ers or oblig­a­tions. In addi­tion, it is also ben­e­fi­cial to reflect on real life exam­ples of cas­es where a pros­e­cu­tion has or has almost been unsuc­cess­ful, so as to pin point what poten­tial issues can arise in such mat­ters and what steps can be tak­en so that the same prob­lems do not under­mine inves­ti­ga­tions and the suc­cess of future pros­e­cu­tions.

Investigation techniques and the limitations on certain powers

Once a coun­cil has con­clud­ed that an inves­ti­ga­tion of an alleged breach is nec­es­sary, it is impor­tant that a con­sid­ered and coor­di­nat­ed method for car­ry­ing out the inves­ti­ga­tion is fol­lowed by the coun­cil, which will require prop­er record keep­ing and mon­i­tor­ing of the unau­tho­rised activ­i­ty to be under­tak­en. How­ev­er, before an inves­ti­ga­tion pro­ceeds to this point, it is crit­i­cal that the coun­cil has con­firmed it has the juris­dic­tion and pow­er to enforce com­pli­ance. This is crit­i­cal so that the inves­ti­ga­tion or pros­e­cu­tion of a mat­ter is not sub­se­quent­ly chal­lenged by the accused on the basis that the inves­ti­ga­tor has unknow­ing­ly act­ed with­out the appro­pri­ate del­e­ga­tions of author­i­ty to car­ry out the inves­ti­ga­tion or obtain cer­tain evi­dence in con­nec­tion with the inves­ti­ga­tion.

Limitations on powers of investigation officers to require answers and record evidence

An exam­ple of where a coun­cil strayed beyond the pow­ers it has under the Envi­ron­men­tal Plan­ning and Assess­ment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) was con­sid­ered in Zhang v Woodgate and Lane Cove Coun­cil [2015] NSWLEC 10. In this case, Lane Cove Coun­cil had issued notices under for­mer s118BA of the EP&A Act (now s9.23) to a con­sul­tant that the defen­dant had engaged as part of the car­ry­ing out of unau­tho­rised works, in an attempt to com­pel the con­sul­tant to pro­vide answers in rela­tion to the alleged breach of the EP&A Act, where crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings had already been com­menced in rela­tion to that breach. The NSW Land and Envi­ron­ment Court found that the notice issued to the con­sul­tant was invalid because the notice failed to iden­ti­fy the mat­ter in rela­tion to which the con­sul­tant was required to answer ques­tions. The Court held that because the notice failed to iden­ti­fy these mat­ters, it was in con­tra­ven­tion of the require­ments for such notices under s118BA of the EP&A Act.

Limitations on notices requiring persons to provide information and records

A sim­i­lar issue was con­sid­ered in Port Mac­quar­ie-Hast­ings Coun­cil v Mans­field [2019] NSWCCA 7In this case the defen­dant built a large struc­ture with­out devel­op­ment con­sent. When the unau­tho­rised works were brought to the council’s atten­tion they issued notices under for­mer s119J (now s 9.22) of the EP&A Act for infor­ma­tion to be pro­vid­ed by the defen­dant. After this, and once pro­ceed­ings had been com­menced by the coun­cil, sub­poe­nas were issued based on those notices. The key argu­ment raised by the defen­dant in these pro­ceed­ings was that these notices were issued while the coun­cil was aware it was con­sid­er­ing bring­ing charges against the defen­dant, and thus the notices were invalid as it was an improp­er use of the pow­er grant­ed under s119J of the EP&A Act. For­tu­nate­ly, in this case, despite the alleged inva­lid­i­ty of the notices the Court decid­ed in favour of the coun­cil, stat­ing that the issu­ing of the notices was still part of the inves­ti­ga­tion of a poten­tial EP&A Act breach, and even if it was issued for dual pur­pos­es, the EP&A Act pro­vides the pow­er for the notices to be issued as they were to assist the coun­cil in deter­min­ing poten­tial con­tra­ven­tions of the EP&A Act.

The above­men­tioned cas­es high­light the impor­tance of ensur­ing strict com­pli­ance with the require­ments for any notices that a coun­cil issues in rela­tion to a pros­e­cu­tion. If a coun­cil fails to com­ply with the rel­e­vant statu­to­ry require­ments in the issu­ing of notices, there is a rea­son­able risk that any evi­dence obtained pur­suant to such notices will not be admis­si­ble in the pro­ceed­ings.

Best practice interviewing techniques

In Ku-ring-gai Coun­cil v John David Chia (No 15) [2019] NSWLEC 1, the Court was asked to con­sid­er whether the inves­ti­ga­tion and inter­view­ing tech­niques used by an inves­ti­ga­tor result­ed in the cor­rob­o­ra­tion of evi­dence of a wit­ness, which would cause the wit­ness’ evi­dence to be deemed unre­li­able and not tak­en into account by the Court on this basis. Ku-ing-gai Coun­cil had hired a pri­vate inves­ti­ga­tor who had allowed wit­ness­es to be inter­viewed togeth­er as well as shar­ing with wit­ness­es infor­ma­tion that had been pro­vid­ed from oth­er wit­ness­es and also try­ing to reach wit­ness­es through oth­er wit­ness­es (that may have been com­plic­it). The judge ulti­mate­ly found that the way the inves­ti­ga­tion had been con­duct­ed and the inter­view­ing of wit­ness­es was ‘less than ide­al’, how­ev­er after con­sid­er­ing the facts of the case he ulti­mate­ly deter­mined that no cor­rob­o­ra­tion had occurred, despite the oppor­tu­ni­ties for cor­rob­o­ra­tion that had been pro­vid­ed by the inves­ti­ga­tor. In this case, a num­ber of best prac­tice inter­view­ing prin­ci­ples for coun­cils to adhere to were iden­ti­fied, includ­ing the fol­low­ing:

  • it is impor­tant to keep wit­ness­es sep­a­rate dur­ing the inter­view process;
  • wit­ness­es should nev­er be inter­viewed togeth­er because there is a chance of con­t­a­m­i­na­tion and the wit­ness with the stronger per­son­al­i­ty may over­bear the wit­ness with the weak­er per­son­al­i­ty;
  • it is impor­tant inves­ti­ga­tors do not sug­gest mate­r­i­al to wit­ness­es as to do so may influ­ence what they say and deprive the inves­ti­ga­tor of the abil­i­ty to check what the wit­ness­es actu­al­ly know;
  • by impart­ing infor­ma­tion to a wit­ness, the wit­ness is put on notice in rela­tion to spe­cif­ic issues which may mean that a com­plete and inde­pen­dent ver­sion of what occurred can­not be obtained; and
  • where it is with­in his con­trol, the inves­ti­ga­tor should not allow Wit­ness A to come into con­tact with Wit­ness B unless he/she had an inde­pen­dent ver­sion of facts from each of them.

In addi­tion to the above, it is also impor­tant for inves­ti­ga­tors to remem­ber that indi­vid­u­als have a right to silence and the priv­i­lege against self-incrim­i­na­tion (unless they have been direct­ed or com­pelled under the EP&A Act or the Pro­tec­tion of the Envi­ron­ment Oper­a­tions Act 1997 to answer ques­tions).

If dur­ing ques­tion­ing an inves­ti­ga­tor forms a belief that there is suf­fi­cient evi­dence to estab­lish that the per­son has com­mit­ted an offence, then they must cau­tion the per­son of their right to silence. If they do not, then any evi­dence obtained from that point on may be held to have been improp­er­ly obtained.

It has also been held that evi­dence may be improp­er­ly obtained where an employ­ee (who is not a sus­pect) is mak­ing admis­sions against their employ­er and they have not been cau­tioned.

Has council commenced the proceedings in time?

The right to take legal action in respect of an alleged unlaw­ful activ­i­ty will often be sub­ject to a leg­isla­tive time lim­it. Depend­ing on the offence, the applic­a­ble statute of lim­i­ta­tion may restrict a coun­cil from tak­ing action from the date of the alleged offence, or for oth­er mat­ters, the start­ing time may be from the point in time that coun­cil first became aware of the offence.

Sub­ject to the inves­ti­gat­ing offi­cer ensur­ing that he/she has the prop­er del­e­gat­ed author­i­ty required to com­mence a for­mal inves­ti­ga­tion, the inves­ti­ga­tor must ensure that all the steps that need to be under­tak­en in con­nec­tion with the inves­ti­ga­tion take into account any statute of lim­i­ta­tion that may apply. With­out prop­er­ly plan­ning the inves­ti­ga­tion process, coun­cils may expose them­selves to a risk that by the time the inves­ti­ga­tion is com­plete, they may already be out of time to com­mence pro­ceed­ings.

In May 2018 Cum­ber­land Coun­cil expe­ri­enced first­hand a chal­lenge against pro­ceed­ings it brought against an indi­vid­ual for the car­ry­ing out of unau­tho­rised build­ing works in 2014, which result­ed in the devel­op­ment of a mosque with­out a con­struc­tion cer­tifi­cate hav­ing been first obtained. In Cum­ber­land Coun­cil v Tony Younan; Cum­ber­land Coun­cil v Ron­ney Oueik; Cum­ber­land Coun­cil v H & M Ren­o­va­tions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 145, Cum­ber­land Coun­cil com­menced pro­ceed­ings alleg­ing that the defen­dant failed to com­ply with a devel­op­ment con­trol order, there­by com­mit­ting an offence in con­tra­ven­tion of s9.37 (for­mer­ly s125) of the EP&A Act. Due to the rel­e­vant time lim­it under the EP&A Act hav­ing expired, Cum­ber­land Coun­cil sought to bring the pro­ceed­ings under for­mer s127(5A) (now s9.57(5A)) of the EP&A Act which pro­vides that pro­ceed­ings for any such offence under the EP&A Act or reg­u­la­tions may be com­menced with­in, but not lat­er than, 2 years after the date on which “evi­dence of the alleged offence” first came to the atten­tion of any inves­ti­ga­tion offi­cer who is a mem­ber of the staff of the Depart­ment. The defen­dant argued that the pro­ceed­ings were com­menced out of time.

Ulti­mate­ly in this case the Court found that “evi­dence of the alleged offence” means that evi­dence capa­ble of indi­cat­ing that an offence has been com­mit­ted has to have been secured. In the case of Cum­ber­land Council’s pro­ceed­ings, the Court held that the inves­ti­ga­tion offi­cer need­ed to have evi­dence that con­struc­tion works on the mosque had com­menced and evi­dence brought to his or her atten­tion capa­ble of show­ing that a con­struc­tion cer­tifi­cate had not been obtained when this occurred. Once evi­dence of both of these ele­ments was brought to the inves­ti­gat­ing offi­cer atten­tion, the time lim­it pro­vid­ed by s127(5A) would have been engaged. As coun­cil was unable to demon­strate that both of these ele­ments were sat­is­fied, the Court deter­mined that coun­cil had com­menced the pro­ceed­ings out of time.

Sep­a­rate­ly, in the case of Willough­by City Coun­cil v Scren­ci [2015] NSWLEC 192, Willough­by Coun­cil charged the defen­dant with two offences under s125 (now s9.50) of the EP&A Act for the car­ry­ing out of a large amount of devel­op­ment work with­out devel­op­ment con­sent. The key issue which arose in this case was whether the pro­ceed­ings were statute-barred by rea­son of being com­menced after the expi­ra­tion of the rel­e­vant lim­i­ta­tion peri­od of two years fixed by s127(5) of the EP&A Act. By the time pro­ceed­ings had been com­menced, it had been more than two years since the builder (as a wit­ness) had fin­ished the work. In these cir­cum­stances, coun­cil was out of time to com­mence pro­ceed­ings and pre­vent­ed from bring­ing action against the defen­dant under s127(5). Amongst oth­er mat­ters, the Court was required to con­sid­er:

  • whether the onus was on coun­cil as the pros­e­cu­tor in this case to estab­lish that the pro­ceed­ings were com­menced in time; and
  • whether the statu­to­ry bar upon com­mence­ment of pro­ceed­ings could be waived by the Court.

The Court con­clud­ed that in cir­cum­stances where the com­mence­ment of the pro­ceed­ings for an offence charged is the sub­ject of a statu­to­ry lim­i­ta­tion peri­od, the pros­e­cu­tor bears the onus of estab­lish­ing that the pro­ceed­ings have been com­menced with­in the rel­e­vant time lim­it. It is there­fore impor­tant that coun­cil is able to pro­vide evi­dence to estab­lish that any pro­ceed­ings it com­mences have been brought in time.

Fur­ther, once the statu­to­ry lim­i­ta­tion pro­vi­sion is valid­ly raised by a par­ty, the Court must give effect to the statu­to­ry bar that applies. Even if a plea of guilty has been entered by the defen­dant in rela­tion to the offence pri­or to the issue of the statu­to­ry bar issue being raised, the Court does not have dis­cre­tion to main­tain the defendant’s guilty plea.

Mov­ing for­ward

Not­ing that this arti­cle pro­vides just a few exam­ples of some of the impor­tant mat­ters which must be con­sid­ered by a coun­cil in rela­tion to pros­e­cu­tions, should you require any assis­tance or have any queries, please do not hes­i­tate to con­tact the Plan­ning and Envi­ron­ment team at McCul­lough Robert­son lawyers for assis­tance.

Spe­cial thanks to Eliz­a­beth Ryan, Lawyer for her assis­tance in putting this arti­cle togeth­er.

 

This pub­li­ca­tion cov­ers legal and tech­ni­cal issues in a gen­er­al way. It is not designed to express opin­ions on spe­cif­ic cas­es. It is intend­ed for infor­ma­tion pur­pos­es only and should not be regard­ed as legal advice. Fur­ther advice should be obtained before tak­ing action on any issue dealt with in this pub­li­ca­tion.

Author: mayet

Mirror Mirror on the wall, Who is the Faerest of us all? The Truth are we in the skies you see, The Balance of Fire And Water is Elektricity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *