Harrison v Baring (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 145

Harrison v Baring (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 145

Taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences (including the large volume of water taken without authorisation during severe water shortage, the Defendant's complete control over the offending, breach of trust and financial motivation), the limited mitigating factors (absence of significant prior convictions, likelihood of not re-offending), the importance of general deterrence and proportionality, the appropriate penalties for the ten offences are fines totalling $290,000, with 50% payable to the Prosecutor, and legal costs of $80,000. The totality principle was considered in grouping the offences, ensuring the sum is not excessive relative to total criminality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution (environmental/water Offences) / Sentencing Following Conviction
Outcome
Defendant convicted of all ten offences and sentenced to fines totaling $290,000 plus legal costs
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'water Management' 'unauthorised Taking of Water' 'breach of Licence Conditions' 'objective and Subjective Factors in Sentencing' 'public Trust' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'totality Principle']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'water Law'] ['sentencing' 'water Management' 'unauthorised Taking of Water' 'breach of Licence Conditions' 'objective and Subjective Factors in Sentencing' 'public Trust' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'totality Principle']

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 Prosecution (environmental/water Offences) / Sentencing Following Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What is the appropriate sentence for the Defendant's conviction on ten counts of unauthorised taking of water and breach of approval under the Water Management Act 2000?" 'What objective and subjective factors are relevant to determining the penalties?' 'Does the totality principle apply with respect to the ten offences?']

Ratio Decidendi

Taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences (including the large volume of water taken without authorisation during severe water shortage, the Defendant's complete control over the offending, breach of trust and financial motivation), the limited mitigating factors (absence of significant prior convictions, likelihood of not re-offending), the importance of general deterrence and proportionality, the appropriate penalties for the ten offences are fines totalling $290,000, with 50% payable to the Prosecutor, and legal costs of $80,000. The totality principle was considered in grouping the offences, ensuring the sum is not excessive relative to total criminality.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted of all ten offences and sentenced to fines totaling $290,000 plus legal costs

Orders

  • ['Defendant convicted on all ten counts (matters 11/50856-11/50865)' 'Fines imposed: $90,000 (11/50856); $20,000 (11/50857); $50,000 (11/50858); $15,000 (11/50859); $20,000 (11/50860); $40,000 (11/50861); $10,000 (11/50862); $30,000 (11/50863); $5,000 (11/50864); $10,000 (11/50865)' '50% of total fines payable to...