Ulmarra Shire Council - V - Clarence River County Council [1999] NSWLEC 42

Ulmarra Shire Council - V - Clarence River County Council [1999] NSWLEC 42

Although the offence was proved and the guilty plea was entered after the hearing was part heard, the Court was satisfied that the defendant was unlikely to re-offend, that the flood wall was structurally sound and fulfilled its intended public flood mitigation purpose, and that imposing a monetary penalty would serve no utility because the defendant's limited public funds were better used for flood mitigation works and it would already pay the prosecutor's costs. The charge was therefore dismissed without conviction under s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Carrying Out Development Without Consent / Sentence/penalty After Guilty Plea, Following Earlier Ruling That There Was a Case to Answer
Outcome
Offence found proved, but without proceeding to conviction the charge was dismissed under s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900; defendant ordered to pay prosecutor's costs.
Legal Topics
['development Without Consent' 'flood Mitigation Works' 'exercise of Discretion Under S 556 a of the Crimes Act 1900' 'sentencing and Penalties' 'costs']
['environmental Planning Law' 'criminal Law' 'local Government'] ['development Without Consent' 'flood Mitigation Works' 'exercise of Discretion Under S 556 a of the Crimes Act 1900' 'sentencing and Penalties' 'costs']

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 Carrying Out Development Without Consent / Sentence/penalty After Guilty Plea, Following Earlier Ruling That There Was a Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's construction of a flood wall without development consent warranted a monetary penalty." 'Whether the Court should exercise discretion under s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 to dismiss the charge without proceeding to conviction.' "What effect should be given to the defendant's guilty plea, entered after the hearing was part heard."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the offence was proved and the guilty plea was entered after the hearing was part heard, the Court was satisfied that the defendant was unlikely to re-offend, that the flood wall was structurally sound and fulfilled its intended public flood mitigation purpose, and that imposing a monetary penalty would serve no utility because the defendant's limited public funds were better used for flood mitigation works and it would already pay the prosecutor's costs. The charge was therefore dismissed without conviction under s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900.

Court Disposition

Offence found proved, but without proceeding to conviction the charge was dismissed under s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900; defendant ordered to pay prosecutor's costs.

Orders

  • ['The offence is found proved but pursuant to s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900, as amended, without proceeding to a conviction, the charge is dismissed.' "The defendant must pay the prosecutor's costs assessed in accordance with s 52 of the Land and Environment Court Act." 'The exhibits may be returned.']