Garrett on behalf of the Director-General of the Department of Conservation and Environment v House [2006] NSWLEC 492

Garrett on behalf of the Director-General of the Department of Conservation and Environment v House [2006] NSWLEC 492

The offence was objectively serious and caused significant environmental harm because at least 27 Welcome Swallows died and at least 51 were injured after the Defendant applied Scarecrow bird repellent to pipes in the car park. Although the Defendant did not intentionally harm the swallows and his conduct was characterised as careless and unthinking, practical measures could have avoided the foreseeable risk and the offence was not trivial. The Defendant's good character, lack of prior convictions, cooperation, remorse and early guilty plea justified a substantial discount, but did not justify application of s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. A conviction, fine of $9,000...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Harming Protected Fauna Under S 98(2)(a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
The Defendant was convicted, fined $9,000 and ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['harming Protected Fauna' 'welcome Swallows' 'guilty Plea' 'environmental Offences' 'section 10 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'general Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['harming Protected Fauna' 'welcome Swallows' 'guilty Plea' 'environmental Offences' 'section 10 Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999' 'general Deterrence' 'mitigating 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

Prosecution for Harming Protected Fauna Under S 98(2)(a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendant should be convicted and fined for harming protected fauna after pleading guilty to an offence under s 98(2)(a) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.' 'Whether s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 should be applied so that no conviction be recorded.' "What penalty was appropriate having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence, environmental harm, the Defendant's state of mind, deterrence, means to pay, guilty plea and mitigating factors."]

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was objectively serious and caused significant environmental harm because at least 27 Welcome Swallows died and at least 51 were injured after the Defendant applied Scarecrow bird repellent to pipes in the car park. Although the Defendant did not intentionally harm the swallows and his conduct was characterised as careless and unthinking, practical measures could have avoided the foreseeable risk and the offence was not trivial. The Defendant's good character, lack of prior convictions, cooperation, remorse and early guilty plea justified a substantial discount, but did not justify application of s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. A conviction, fine of $9,000...

Court Disposition

The Defendant was convicted, fined $9,000 and ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the offence with which he is charged.' "The Defendant is fined the sum of $9,000 to be paid to the Registrar of the Court within 28 days of today's date." "The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor's costs of the proceedings against him, as agreed or assessed." 'The exhibits may be...