Director General Land & Water Conservation v Tony Rial [1998] NSWLEC 72 (29 April 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 66

Director General Land & Water Conservation v Tony Rial [1998] NSWLEC 72 (29 April 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 66

Because the defendants knew SEPP 46 applied and should have investigated whether consent was required before clearing, and because the offence was not trivial and had serious environmental consequences, convictions were required and s 556A of the Crimes Act was unavailable. Penalties were set by reference to the $100,000 maximum, seriousness, environmental consequences, mitigating matters including consent orders, and each defendant's responsibility and role, with higher penalties for Mr Crawford and the company than for Rial and Harris.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Environmental Prosecution for Clearing Native Vegetation Without Development Consent Required by Cl 6 of SEPP 46 Contrary to S 76 of the EPA Act / Penalty After Liability Found
Outcome
All four defendants were convicted, fined, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or determined under the Regulation.
Legal Topics
['clearing Native Vegetation' 'development Consent' 'sepp 46' 'strict Liability' 'penalty' 'mitigation' 'consent Orders' 'costs']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['clearing Native Vegetation' 'development Consent' 'sepp 46' 'strict Liability' 'penalty' 'mitigation' 'consent Orders' 'costs']

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 Prosecution for Clearing Native Vegetation Without Development Consent Required by Cl 6 of SEPP 46 Contrary to S 76 of the EPA Act / Penalty After Liability Found

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalties should be imposed for clearing native vegetation without development consent.' 'Whether the defendants should receive the benefit of s 556A of the Crimes Act and avoid convictions.' "How the consent orders, mitigation, environmental consequences and each defendant's role should affect penalty."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants knew SEPP 46 applied and should have investigated whether consent was required before clearing, and because the offence was not trivial and had serious environmental consequences, convictions were required and s 556A of the Crimes Act was unavailable. Penalties were set by reference to the $100,000 maximum, seriousness, environmental consequences, mitigating matters including consent orders, and each defendant's responsibility and role, with higher penalties for Mr Crawford and the company than for Rial and Harris.

Court Disposition

All four defendants were convicted, fined, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or determined under the Regulation.

Orders

  • ['In Matter No 50043 of 1996, Tony Rial is convicted of the offence as charged in the summons.' 'Tony Rial is ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $5,000.' 'In Matter No 50044 of 1996, Drew Harris is convicted of the offence as charged in the summons.' 'Drew Harris is ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $2,000.' 'In...