Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Ausgrid [2013] NSWLEC 51

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Ausgrid [2013] NSWLEC 51

The appropriate sentence for Ausgrid’s harm to an Aboriginal object was determined by weighing objective gravity, including moderate environmental harm and lack of intent, and significant mitigating subjective factors. The offence was the result of an innocent mistake, not commercial motive or deliberate conduct. Ausgrid pleaded guilty early, expressed genuine remorse, cooperated with authorities, and paid costs. The harm caused was moderate but not substantial. General deterrence required a conviction be recorded. An order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was not appropriate. The penalty imposed was a fine of $4690, prosecution costs of $36,000, and publication of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Judgment
Outcome
Defendant convicted; fined; publication order made; prosecution costs awarded.
Legal Topics
['harming Aboriginal Object' 'sentencing Principles' 'general Deterrence' 'publication Order' 'corporate Responsibility' 'objective and Subjective Factors in Sentencing']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'cultural Heritage Law'] ['harming Aboriginal Object' 'sentencing Principles' 'general Deterrence' 'publication Order' 'corporate Responsibility' 'objective and Subjective Factors in Sentencing']

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

Sentence / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Determination of appropriate sentence for harm to Aboriginal object under s 86(2) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974' 'Objective gravity and subjective circumstances in sentencing' 'Extent of harm to Aboriginal object' 'Whether no conviction should be recorded' 'Appropriateness of publication order']

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate sentence for Ausgrid’s harm to an Aboriginal object was determined by weighing objective gravity, including moderate environmental harm and lack of intent, and significant mitigating subjective factors. The offence was the result of an innocent mistake, not commercial motive or deliberate conduct. Ausgrid pleaded guilty early, expressed genuine remorse, cooperated with authorities, and paid costs. The harm caused was moderate but not substantial. General deterrence required a conviction be recorded. An order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was not appropriate. The penalty imposed was a fine of $4690, prosecution costs of $36,000, and publication of...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted; fined; publication order made; prosecution costs awarded.

Orders

  • ['Ausgrid is convicted of the offence under s 86(2) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.' 'Ausgrid is fined $4690.' "Ausgrid to pay prosecutor's costs of $36,000 under Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 257B and 257G." 'Publication orders as per s 205(1)(a) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974: notices in Sydney...