DON SMITH v. AFIF ABDALLAH [1994] NSWLEC 198 (9 December 1994) [1994] NSWLEC 1

DON SMITH v. AFIF ABDALLAH [1994] NSWLEC 198 (9 December 1994) [1994] NSWLEC 1

The defendant's culpability was high because he was an experienced builder, knew that council consent was required before commencing work, and nevertheless organised and paid for substantial works without approval. The late guilty plea limited its significance for penalty and costs. Although the prosecutor was entitled to prepare for a defended five-day hearing, the claimed costs of $30,000 were excessive without detailed justification, so costs were assessed at $15,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Erecting a Building Without Council Approval Contrary to S 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted, fined $15,000, and ordered to pay prosecutor's costs assessed at $15,000.
Legal Topics
['building Work Without Council Approval' 'penalty Assessment' 'guilty Plea' "prosecutor's Costs" 'heritage Item']
['local Government' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'criminal Sentencing' 'costs'] ['building Work Without Council Approval' 'penalty Assessment' 'guilty Plea' "prosecutor's Costs" 'heritage Item']

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 Erecting a Building Without Council Approval Contrary to S 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed for erecting a building without prior council approval.' 'What order for costs should be made in favour of the prosecutor.' "What weight should be given to the defendant's late guilty plea and the conduct of the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's culpability was high because he was an experienced builder, knew that council consent was required before commencing work, and nevertheless organised and paid for substantial works without approval. The late guilty plea limited its significance for penalty and costs. Although the prosecutor was entitled to prepare for a defended five-day hearing, the claimed costs of $30,000 were excessive without detailed justification, so costs were assessed at $15,000.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted, fined $15,000, and ordered to pay prosecutor's costs assessed at $15,000.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'The defendant is fined the sum of $15,000.' "The defendant is ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as assessed in the sum of $15,000." 'The fine and the costs are to be paid to the Registrar of this Court for payment out to Strathfield Council.' 'The fine...