The Court held that where a prosecutor fails to particularise a specific allegation (here, the failure to use hole liners) in the summonses for environmental offences, evidence directed to proving that unparticularised allegation as a basis for establishing the offence is inadmissible, even if the prosecutor's expert has opined on the issue. However, the Court declined to exclude evidence on other contested topics (inadequacy of trial blasts, lack of understanding of explosive products, failure to change blast processes) where such evidence was capable of being rationally probative of the particularised contraventions, even if the evidence did not precisely mirror the language of the particulars. On records of interview with employees of a corporate defendant, the Court held that the entirety of a record of interview is not admissible merely because some parts contain admissions under s 87(1)(b) of the Evidence Act; only admissions, exculpatory statements connected to those admissions, and relevant contextual material are admissible, with irrelevant portions excluded.
The full text is available to signed-in members.