Environment Protection Authority v Djura [2012] NSWLEC 122

Environment Protection Authority v Djura [2012] NSWLEC 122

The defendant committed both offences by signing a site audit statement representing himself to be accredited and by preparing and submitting documents constituting a statutory site audit when he was not accredited. Although the conduct undermined the integrity of the accredited site auditor scheme, it caused no environmental harm and was in the low range of objective seriousness. The availability of a penalty notice for the s 48(1) offence was not relevant because no penalty notice had been issued. Taking into account the early guilty pleas, mitigating subjective factors, limited means, need for general deterrence and the totality principle, the appropriate penalty was a total fine of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Environmental Offences Prosecution / Sentencing After Early Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
The defendant was convicted of both offences and fined $3,750 for each offence, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['contaminated Land Management' 'accredited Site Auditors' 'statutory Site Audits' 'false Representation of Accreditation' 'penalty Notices' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'totality Principle']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['contaminated Land Management' 'accredited Site Auditors' 'statutory Site Audits' 'false Representation of Accreditation' 'penalty Notices' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'totality Principle']

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

Class 5 Environmental Offences Prosecution / Sentencing After Early Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for offences under ss 57(1) and 48(1)(a) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.' 'Whether the availability of a penalty notice for the s 48(1) offence, with a prescribed penalty of $750, affected the relative seriousness of the offence under s 21A(1)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the existence of another less punitive offence or penalty mechanism was relevant to sentence.' 'How the statutory factors, objective seriousness, deterrence, mitigating subjective factors, means to pay and totality principle should affect penalty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant committed both offences by signing a site audit statement representing himself to be accredited and by preparing and submitting documents constituting a statutory site audit when he was not accredited. Although the conduct undermined the integrity of the accredited site auditor scheme, it caused no environmental harm and was in the low range of objective seriousness. The availability of a penalty notice for the s 48(1) offence was not relevant because no penalty notice had been issued. Taking into account the early guilty pleas, mitigating subjective factors, limited means, need for general deterrence and the totality principle, the appropriate penalty was a total fine of...

Court Disposition

The defendant was convicted of both offences and fined $3,750 for each offence, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the two offences as charged.' 'The defendant is fined the sum of $3,750 for each offence.' "The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed." 'The exhibits may be returned.']