Campbelltown City Council v Craig Stephen Woolley [2018] NSWLEC 82

Campbelltown City Council v Craig Stephen Woolley [2018] NSWLEC 82

Both offences fell within the moderate range of objective seriousness due to the amount of fill deposited, actual and foreseeable environmental harm, foreseeability, and the defendant's control over the causes. Despite good character, lack of prior convictions, remorse, significant remediation, and early guilty pleas, deterrence and seriousness required convictions and fines. Section 10 was not warranted, as neither offence was trivial nor extenuating. To avoid double punishment under the totality principle, fines were reduced by 30% from the discounted starting points. The defendant's means to pay did not preclude fines.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Convictions recorded; fines imposed; costs awarded to prosecutor.
Legal Topics
['carrying Out Development Without Consent' 'polluting Waters' 'sentencing Principles' 'objective Seriousness' 'remediation' 'section 10 Application']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['carrying Out Development Without Consent' 'polluting Waters' 'sentencing Principles' 'objective Seriousness' 'remediation' 'section 10 Application']

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

Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate sentence for carrying out development without consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)?' 'What is the appropriate sentence for polluting waters under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)?' 'Should the Court make an order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to avoid a conviction?' 'How should the principle of totality be applied to sentencing for the two offences?']

Ratio Decidendi

Both offences fell within the moderate range of objective seriousness due to the amount of fill deposited, actual and foreseeable environmental harm, foreseeability, and the defendant's control over the causes. Despite good character, lack of prior convictions, remorse, significant remediation, and early guilty pleas, deterrence and seriousness required convictions and fines. Section 10 was not warranted, as neither offence was trivial nor extenuating. To avoid double punishment under the totality principle, fines were reduced by 30% from the discounted starting points. The defendant's means to pay did not preclude fines.

Court Disposition

Convictions recorded; fines imposed; costs awarded to prosecutor.

Orders

  • ["In proceedings 2017/00166549: Defendant convicted; fined $52,500; pay prosecutor's legal costs." "In proceedings 2017/00166550: Defendant convicted; fined $31,500; pay prosecutor's legal costs."]