Grant Barnes, Chief Regulatory Officer, Natural Resources Access Regulator v Commins [2023] NSWLEC 43

Grant Barnes, Chief Regulatory Officer, Natural Resources Access Regulator v Commins [2023] NSWLEC 43

Commins was convicted for breaching condition 19 (annual bore extraction limit) of Approval 40CA403694, over-extracting 1,351.1 ML of groundwater in two water years, contrary to s 91G(2) WMA. His offending was inadvertent and not for financial gain, but undermined the regulatory regime, posed a risk of environmental harm, and impacted others' rights. The appropriate penalty, synthesising objective and subjective factors, is a fine of $56,000 after a 20% discount for an early guilty plea, moiety to prosecutor, professional costs of $70,000, and a publication order naming Commins.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Sentencing Proceeding for Environmental Offence / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Convicted and fined; orders made for moiety, costs, and publication.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'water Offences' 'strict Liability' 'regulatory Breaches' 'bore Extraction Limits' 'mitigating and Aggravating Factors' 'deterrence' 'remorse' 'moiety' 'publication Order']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'water Offences' 'strict Liability' 'regulatory Breaches' 'bore Extraction Limits' 'mitigating and Aggravating Factors' 'deterrence' 'remorse' 'moiety' 'publication Order']

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

Sentencing Proceeding for Environmental Offence / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate sentence for taking water contrary to a water approval in breach of s 91G(2) of the Water Management Act 2000?' 'Was the offence committed for financial gain?' 'What environmental harm was caused or likely to be caused?' 'Should the parity principle apply?' 'Should the defendant be named in a publication order?']

Ratio Decidendi

Commins was convicted for breaching condition 19 (annual bore extraction limit) of Approval 40CA403694, over-extracting 1,351.1 ML of groundwater in two water years, contrary to s 91G(2) WMA. His offending was inadvertent and not for financial gain, but undermined the regulatory regime, posed a risk of environmental harm, and impacted others' rights. The appropriate penalty, synthesising objective and subjective factors, is a fine of $56,000 after a 20% discount for an early guilty plea, moiety to prosecutor, professional costs of $70,000, and a publication order naming Commins.

Court Disposition

Convicted and fined; orders made for moiety, costs, and publication.

Orders

  • ['Timothy Commins convicted of offence against s 91G(2) of Water Management Act 2000' 'Fined $56,000' '50% of fine to be paid to prosecutor (moiety)' "Ordered to pay prosecutor's professional costs of $70,000" 'Ordered to publish notice in The Land and The Irrigator newspapers and digital editions naming Commins'...