A WA parliamentary question seeks clarification on why alleged unauthorised mining activities were not prosecuted, despite legal advice suggesting they may have violated section 155 of the relevant legislation. The Minister's response cites the low impact of the activities and Crown Solicitor's advice questioning the public interest in prosecution.

AnsweredQoN 701Legislative Council
Asked
17 August 2000
Portfolio
Mines

QuestionView source ↗

(1) Can the Minister advise why the alleged activities may amount to unauthorised mining activity and be subject to prosecution pursuant to section 155? (2) If not, why not? (3) Can the Minister advise why and for what reasons ... in the circumstances the conduct complained of did not justify prosecution ? (4) If not, why not? Answered on 10 October 2000 The Minister

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
10 October 2000
Response time
54 days
(1) Legal advice provided by the Crown Solicitor?s Office was that the activities complained of may have amounted to unauthorised mining activity under section 155 because they were not authorised under section 20(5). (2) Not applicable. (3) The decision not to prosecute was taken having regard to the low impact nature of the activities complained of and advice from the Crown Solicitor?s Office that it was doubtful that prosecution would be in the public interest. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If not, why not? (3) Can the Minister advise why and for what reasons ... in the circumstances the conduct complained of did not justify prosecution ? (4) If not, why not? Answered on 10 October 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) Legal advice provided by the Crown Solicitor?s Office was that the activities complained of may have amounted to unauthorised mining activity under section 155 because they were not authorised under section 20(5). (2) Not applicable. (3) The decision not to prosecute was taken having regard to the low impact nature of the activities complained of and advice from the Crown Solicitor?s Office that it was doubtful that prosecution would be in the public interest. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Can the Minister advise why and for what reasons ... in the circumstances the conduct complained of did not justify prosecution ? (4) If not, why not? Answered on 10 October 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) Legal advice provided by the Crown Solicitor?s Office was that the activities complained of may have amounted to unauthorised mining activity under section 155 because they were not authorised under section 20(5). (2) Not applicable. (3) The decision not to prosecute was taken having regard to the low impact nature of the activities complained of and advice from the Crown Solicitor?s Office that it was doubtful that prosecution would be in the public interest. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If not, why not? Answered on 10 October 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) Legal advice provided by the Crown Solicitor?s Office was that the activities complained of may have amounted to unauthorised mining activity under section 155 because they were not authorised under section 20(5). (2) Not applicable. (3) The decision not to prosecute was taken having regard to the low impact nature of the activities complained of and advice from the Crown Solicitor?s Office that it was doubtful that prosecution would be in the public interest. (4) Not applicable.
Answered on 10 October 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) Legal advice provided by the Crown Solicitor?s Office was that the activities complained of may have amounted to unauthorised mining activity under section 155 because they were not authorised under section 20(5). (2) Not applicable. (3) The decision not to prosecute was taken having regard to the low impact nature of the activities complained of and advice from the Crown Solicitor?s Office that it was doubtful that prosecution would be in the public interest. (4) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more