Harrison v Perdikaris [2015] NSWLEC 99

Harrison v Perdikaris [2015] NSWLEC 99

Mr Perdikaris was convicted on two counts of counselling or procuring contractors to carry out controlled activities (removal and deposition of material) in the bed and banks of Chimney Creek without controlled activity approvals, constituting offences against s 91E(1) of the Water Management Act 2000. The offences were of moderate seriousness, causing moderate environmental harm, foreseeable, and committed intentionally with knowledge of their illegality. Remorse, remedial action, late guilty pleas, and cooperation were mitigating factors. Fines and costs were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentence Hearing and Conviction
Outcome
Conviction and sentence imposed
Legal Topics
['offences – Carrying Out Controlled Activities Without Approval' 'sentencing – Environmental Harm' 'water Management Act Contravention']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['offences – Carrying Out Controlled Activities Without Approval' 'sentencing – Environmental Harm' 'water Management Act Contravention']

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 Prosecution / Sentence Hearing and Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendant counsel or procure unapproved controlled activities on waterfront land?' 'What is the appropriate penalty for the offences given the objective and subjective circumstances?' 'Were the activities and their environmental impact foreseeable and controllable by the defendant?']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Perdikaris was convicted on two counts of counselling or procuring contractors to carry out controlled activities (removal and deposition of material) in the bed and banks of Chimney Creek without controlled activity approvals, constituting offences against s 91E(1) of the Water Management Act 2000. The offences were of moderate seriousness, causing moderate environmental harm, foreseeable, and committed intentionally with knowledge of their illegality. Remorse, remedial action, late guilty pleas, and cooperation were mitigating factors. Fines and costs were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence imposed

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of two offences charged.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay fines: $59,500 for the first offence (Windmill Dam) and $34,000 for the second offence (Taila Dam), total $93,500.' 'Registrar to pay 50% of each fine to prosecutor per s 122 Fines Act 1996.' "Defendant ordered to pay...