Harris v Harrison [2014] NSWCCA 84

Harris v Harrison [2014] NSWCCA 84

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge materially erred in assessing objective gravity. Section 52 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) did not limit the appellant to taking only enough water to fill the house dam, and the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the meter tampering offence was committed for financial gain. The judge also erred by treating consequences associated with unlawful taking of water as consequences of the charged offence of meter tampering, by treating water shortage as relevant to that offence, and by failing to take into account the respondent's concession that there was no obligation to install or use the meter. In light of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence and Orders Under S 5 AB of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) From Class 5 Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court for an Offence Against S 91 K(1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw) / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal Following Conviction and Sentencing After a Guilty Plea in the Land and Environment Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction confirmed; Land and Environment Court orders (2)-(7) vacated; good behaviour bond and substituted publication order made.
Legal Topics
['meter Tampering Under S 91 K(1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw)' 'assessment of Objective Gravity' 'financial Gain as an Aggravating Factor' 'construction of S 52 of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw)' 'publication Orders Under S 353 G(1)(a) of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw)' 'jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal Under Ss 5 AA and 5 AB of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)' 'costs Orders in Summary Criminal Proceedings']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'water Management and Environmental Regulation' 'appellate Jurisdiction'] ['meter Tampering Under S 91 K(1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw)' 'assessment of Objective Gravity' 'financial Gain as an Aggravating Factor' 'construction of S 52 of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw)' 'publication Orders Under S 353 G(1)(a) of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw)' 'jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal Under Ss 5 AA and 5 AB of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)' 'costs Orders in Summary Criminal Proceedings']

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 Appeal Against Sentence and Orders Under S 5 AB of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) From Class 5 Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court for an Offence Against S 91 K(1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (nsw) / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal Following Conviction and Sentencing After a Guilty Plea in the Land and Environment Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed for financial gain.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in construing s 52 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) as allowing extraction only of sufficient water to fill the house dam.' 'Whether the sentencing judge impermissibly treated consequences of unlawful taking of water as consequences of the meter tampering offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account that there was no obligation on the appellant to install or use a meter on the pump.' 'Whether the Local Court jurisdictional monetary limit was a relevant sentencing consideration.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the publication order made under s 353G(1)(a) of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge materially erred in assessing objective gravity. Section 52 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) did not limit the appellant to taking only enough water to fill the house dam, and the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the meter tampering offence was committed for financial gain. The judge also erred by treating consequences associated with unlawful taking of water as consequences of the charged offence of meter tampering, by treating water shortage as relevant to that offence, and by failing to take into account the respondent's concession that there was no obligation to install or use the meter. In light of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction confirmed; Land and Environment Court orders (2)-(7) vacated; good behaviour bond and substituted publication order made.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Order (1) of the Orders made by the Land and Environment Court, by which the appellant was convicted of the offence against s 91K(1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), is confirmed.' 'Orders (2)-(7) made by the Land and Environment Court are vacated.' 'Pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes...