Penrith City Council v 24/7 Waste Bins Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] NSWLEC 186

Penrith City Council v 24/7 Waste Bins Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] NSWLEC 186

The offences were serious because the defendants knowingly used the land for waste storage and sorting beyond the soil and concrete consent, continued after clear council directions to cease, acted for profit, and the conduct was not an isolated aberration. Although the late guilty pleas and agreement to reinstate the land justified mitigation, only a limited discount was warranted. Applying totality because the company was wholly owned and controlled by the individual defendant, the aggregate penalty was reduced to $100,000, allocated as $5,000 against the company and $95,000 against Mark Reid, with reinstatement and costs orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Both defendants were convicted. 24/7 Waste Bins Pty Ltd was fined $5,000. Mark Reid was fined $95,000 and ordered by consent to remove specified waste and material from the site. Both defendants were ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs, and exhibits could be returned.
Legal Topics
['development Without Consent' 'waste Storage and Sorting' 'failure to Comply With Development Consent' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'specific and General Deterrence' 'totality Principle']
['environmental Planning Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['development Without Consent' 'waste Storage and Sorting' 'failure to Comply With Development Consent' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'specific and General Deterrence' 'totality Principle']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for Offences Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed on 24/7 Waste Bins Pty Ltd for carrying out development without development consent contrary to ss 76A(1) and 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' "What penalty should be imposed on Mark Reid for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the company's offence." "Whether the defendants' guilty pleas, agreement to reinstate the land, alleged limited capacity to pay, and other circumstances mitigated penalty." 'Whether the offending was serious, deliberate, profit-motivated and continued after council directions to cease.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious because the defendants knowingly used the land for waste storage and sorting beyond the soil and concrete consent, continued after clear council directions to cease, acted for profit, and the conduct was not an isolated aberration. Although the late guilty pleas and agreement to reinstate the land justified mitigation, only a limited discount was warranted. Applying totality because the company was wholly owned and controlled by the individual defendant, the aggregate penalty was reduced to $100,000, allocated as $5,000 against the company and $95,000 against Mark Reid, with reinstatement and costs orders.

Court Disposition

Both defendants were convicted. 24/7 Waste Bins Pty Ltd was fined $5,000. Mark Reid was fined $95,000 and ordered by consent to remove specified waste and material from the site. Both defendants were ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs, and exhibits could be returned.

Orders

  • ['No. 50036 of 2002: The defendant, 24/7 Waste Bins Pty Ltd (ACN 097 533 723), is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'No. 50036 of 2002: The defendant is fined the sum of $5,000.' "No. 50036 of 2002: The defendant must pay the prosecutor's costs in accordance with s 52(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act...