Hijazi v Canterbury City Council (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 367

The evidence supported, beyond reasonable doubt, that the applicant carried out non-exempt development between 2 February and 25 July 2006 without the required development consent, in contravention of s 76A(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. No error attended the initial proceedings regarding evidence admissibility or application of double jeopardy, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 03 July 2007
Procedural Posture: Appeal (criminal Prosecution) / Final Judgment in Land and Environment Court on Appeal From Local Court Conviction
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: ['development Consent' 'evidence Admissibility' 'autrefois Convict' 'local Government Enforcement']

['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['development Consent' 'evidence Admissibility' 'autrefois Convict' 'local Government Enforcement']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal (criminal Prosecution) / Final Judgment in Land and Environment Court on Appeal From Local Court Conviction

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether evidence from entry onto property on 1 February 2006 should have been excluded for illegality' 'Whether charge for development without consent overlapped with earlier conviction (autrefois convict / double jeopardy)' 'Whether development works required development consent under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

['Appeal against conviction dismissed; initial conviction and penalties stand.']