Willoughby City Council v Bechara; Dasco Design And Construction Pty Limited [2003] NSWLEC 71

Willoughby City Council v Bechara; Dasco Design And Construction Pty Limited [2003] NSWLEC 71

Each defendant committed four offences against Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 76A by carrying out works that departed from the approved development plans. Although the later s 96 approval and construction certificate, the limited nature of the deviations, remorse, and very early guilty pleas reduced the seriousness of the offending, convictions and monetary penalties were required because the defendants proceeded without having obtained the necessary approval in advance and general deterrence was relevant. Applying totality, each defendant was fined $5,000 for each of four offences, giving an overall penalty of $20,000 per defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Environmental Offences Prosecution / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Each defendant was convicted of each of the four offences and fined $5,000 for each conviction; each defendant was also ordered to pay the prosecution's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['carrying Out Development Without Development Consent or Otherwise Than in Accordance With Approved Plans' 'effect on Sentence of Subsequent Grant of S 96 Approval' 'development Consent Modifications' 'totality Principle' 'general Deterrence']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['carrying Out Development Without Development Consent or Otherwise Than in Accordance With Approved Plans' 'effect on Sentence of Subsequent Grant of S 96 Approval' 'development Consent Modifications' 'totality Principle' 'general Deterrence']

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

Environmental Offences Prosecution / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed for four offences against Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 76A admitted by each defendant.' 'Whether the subsequent grant of s 96 modification approval and a construction certificate reduced the objective seriousness of the offences.' "Whether the defendants' conduct amounted to deliberate or contumelious defiance of Council authority." 'Whether the totality principle should be applied in sentencing for related offences arising from the same dwelling-house development project.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant committed four offences against Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 76A by carrying out works that departed from the approved development plans. Although the later s 96 approval and construction certificate, the limited nature of the deviations, remorse, and very early guilty pleas reduced the seriousness of the offending, convictions and monetary penalties were required because the defendants proceeded without having obtained the necessary approval in advance and general deterrence was relevant. Applying totality, each defendant was fined $5,000 for each of four offences, giving an overall penalty of $20,000 per defendant.

Court Disposition

Each defendant was convicted of each of the four offences and fined $5,000 for each conviction; each defendant was also ordered to pay the prosecution's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['Each Defendant is convicted of each of the four offences charged.' 'A penalty of $5000 is imposed in respect of each conviction.' 'Each Defendant shall pay the costs of the prosecution in the sum agreed or failing agreement, as assessed, conformably to the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 52.' 'The exhibits...