Natural Resources Access Regulator v Jindalee Road Wines Pty Ltd; Littore (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 105

Natural Resources Access Regulator v Jindalee Road Wines Pty Ltd; Littore (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 105

The Court found a readily identifiable, inadvertent error in the calculation of fines for the Infrastructure Offences by incorrectly applying a totality reduction that was only intended for the Take Water Offences; correcting this error by varying the orders does not amount to re-sentencing and does not breach double jeopardy because it implements the original sentencing reasoning without reconsidering substantive sentencing factors.

Parties
Prosecutor: Natural Resources Access Regulator; Defendant: Jindalee Road Wines Pty Ltd; Defendant: David Littore
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Vary Sentencing Orders / Post Sentencing; Application to Vary Order
Outcome
Orders varied
Legal Topics
Variation of Sentencing Orders, Totality Principle, Double Jeopardy, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (nsw)
Criminal Law Practice and Procedure Environmental Law Variation of Sentencing Orders Totality Principle Double Jeopardy Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (nsw)

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natural Resources Access Regulator

Prosecutor

Jindalee Road Wines Pty Ltd

Defendant

David Littore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion to Vary Sentencing Orders / Post Sentencing; Application to Vary Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether r 36.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) permits correction of the fines imposed in light of an identified calculation error
  2. 2 Whether the variation sought constitutes an impermissible re-sentencing contravening double jeopardy

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found a readily identifiable, inadvertent error in the calculation of fines for the Infrastructure Offences by incorrectly applying a totality reduction that was only intended for the Take Water Offences; correcting this error by varying the orders does not amount to re-sentencing and does not breach double jeopardy because it implements the original sentencing reasoning without reconsidering substantive sentencing factors.

Court Disposition

Orders varied

Orders

  • Order at [81(1)(b)] amended to replace $67,500 with $135,000
  • Order at [81(2)(b)] amended to replace $30,000 with $60,000