Environment Protection Authority v Dib Hanna Abdallah Hanna [2018] NSWLEC 80

Environment Protection Authority v Dib Hanna Abdallah Hanna [2018] NSWLEC 80

Given the objective gravity of the repeat waste offences, extensive harm caused, intentional conduct for financial gain, previous ineffectiveness of fines, limited remorse, and high risk of re-offending, only an aggregate sentence of full-time imprisonment of three years (with a non-parole period of two years and three months) is appropriate, supplemented by publication, restoration, and costs orders to achieve deterrent, retributive, and restorative sentencing purposes. A fine in addition to imprisonment is not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal (environmental Offences) / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to Selected Charges
Outcome
Convicted on five counts under s 144AB(2) of the POEO Act; sentenced to an aggregate of three years' imprisonment (non-parole period of two years and three months), no fine imposed, with orders for publication, restoration of waste-affected properties, and payment of prosecutor's costs.
Legal Topics
['repeat Waste Offending' 'sentencing Principles' 'land Pollution' 'unlawful Waste Disposal' 'aggravating and Mitigating Sentencing Factors']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['repeat Waste Offending' 'sentencing Principles' 'land Pollution' 'unlawful Waste Disposal' 'aggravating and Mitigating Sentencing Factors']

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 Offences) / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to Selected Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate sentence for repeat waste offences under s 144AB(2) POEO Act given the objective and subjective circumstances?' 'Should a fine be imposed in addition to imprisonment?' 'Are publication, restoration and costs orders appropriate remedies in addition to imprisonment?' 'How should the totality principle apply in aggregating sentences for multiple offences?']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the objective gravity of the repeat waste offences, extensive harm caused, intentional conduct for financial gain, previous ineffectiveness of fines, limited remorse, and high risk of re-offending, only an aggregate sentence of full-time imprisonment of three years (with a non-parole period of two years and three months) is appropriate, supplemented by publication, restoration, and costs orders to achieve deterrent, retributive, and restorative sentencing purposes. A fine in addition to imprisonment is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Convicted on five counts under s 144AB(2) of the POEO Act; sentenced to an aggregate of three years' imprisonment (non-parole period of two years and three months), no fine imposed, with orders for publication, restoration of waste-affected properties, and payment of prosecutor's costs.

Orders

  • ['Conviction of five offences under s 144AB(2) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.' "Aggregate sentence of three years' imprisonment commencing 17 April 2018 and expiring 16 April 2021, with non-parole period expiring 16 July 2020." 'Publication order: offender to publish notice of sentence in...