Bentley v Gordon [2005] NSWLEC 695

Bentley v Gordon [2005] NSWLEC 695

The seriousness of the offence was determined by the substantial environmental harm caused to a large and significant subpopulation of a threatened plant species (Tetratheca juncea), the deliberate and planned nature of the conduct for the purpose of development, the defendant's knowledge of the harm, and limited mitigating factors. An appropriate fine reflecting both objective and subjective circumstances was assessed at $30,000, with a further order to pay prosecutor’s costs of $10,000.

Parties
Prosecutor: Jason Robert Bentley; Defendant: Hugh Charles Gordon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
The defendant is convicted and fined $30,000; ordered to pay prosecutor's costs of $10,000.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Environmental Offences, Picking Threatened Species, Objective and Subjective Circumstances in Sentencing
Environmental Law Criminal Law Sentencing Environmental Offences Picking Threatened Species Objective and Subjective Circumstances in Sentencing

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 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Robert Bentley

Prosecutor

Hugh Charles Gordon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate penalty for picking a threatened species contrary to s 118A(2) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
  2. 2 Assessment of objective and subjective factors in sentencing for environmental offences

Ratio Decidendi

The seriousness of the offence was determined by the substantial environmental harm caused to a large and significant subpopulation of a threatened plant species (Tetratheca juncea), the deliberate and planned nature of the conduct for the purpose of development, the defendant's knowledge of the harm, and limited mitigating factors. An appropriate fine reflecting both objective and subjective circumstances was assessed at $30,000, with a further order to pay prosecutor’s costs of $10,000.

Court Disposition

The defendant is convicted and fined $30,000; ordered to pay prosecutor's costs of $10,000.

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.
  • The defendant is fined the sum of $30,000.