Sutherland Shire Council v Turner, C B [2004] NSWLEC 774

Sutherland Shire Council v Turner, C B [2004] NSWLEC 774

The defendant was convicted and fined because he negligently commenced minor preparatory excavation works for a waterfront boatshed project without development consent, contrary to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Although the offence required punishment and general deterrence, its objective seriousness was low because the work was minor, caused no proven actual environmental damage, and the more serious potential hazard was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have resulted from the defendant's work. Significant mitigation arose from the early guilty plea, contrition, cooperation, clean record, acceptance of responsibility and improved procedures, justifying a reduced...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Carrying Out Development Without Development Consent Contrary to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted, fined $15,000 and ordered to pay the Prosecutor's agreed legal costs of $12,500; related company summons dismissed by consent with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['carrying Out Development Without Consent' 'development Consent' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigating Factors' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['carrying Out Development Without Consent' 'development Consent' 'guilty Plea' 'mitigating Factors' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence']

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 Development Consent Contrary to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant carried out development requiring development consent without that consent having been granted.' "What penalty should be imposed after the defendant's guilty plea, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence, deterrence and mitigating factors." 'Whether the excavation work caused the potential hazard associated with the large rock floater could be found beyond reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was convicted and fined because he negligently commenced minor preparatory excavation works for a waterfront boatshed project without development consent, contrary to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Although the offence required punishment and general deterrence, its objective seriousness was low because the work was minor, caused no proven actual environmental damage, and the more serious potential hazard was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have resulted from the defendant's work. Significant mitigation arose from the early guilty plea, contrition, cooperation, clean record, acceptance of responsibility and improved procedures, justifying a reduced...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted, fined $15,000 and ordered to pay the Prosecutor's agreed legal costs of $12,500; related company summons dismissed by consent with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'A fine of $15,000 is imposed in respect of the conviction.' "The Defendant is to pay the Prosecutor's legal costs in the agreed sum of $12,500." 'The exhibits should remain on the Court papers.' 'In relation to the related charge against Harbour Port...