Sutherland Shire Council v Upper Class Developments Pty Limited [2003] NSWLEC 414

Sutherland Shire Council v Upper Class Developments Pty Limited [2003] NSWLEC 414

The s 10 application was refused because, although the environmental consequences were trivial or minor, the Defendant's culpability was not trivial, the actions giving rise to the offence were deliberate, the offences were strict liability offences, and there were no extenuating circumstances. The Court imposed fines because sediment laden water entered the stormwater system, the harm was minor but foreseeable, the Defendant controlled the causes of the offences, and further practical measures could have been taken despite the Defendant's efforts. Mitigating factors, including early guilty pleas, contrition and remorse, no prior record, efforts to control sediment, and substantial costs,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Pollution of Waters and Failure to Carry Out Development in Accordance With Development Consent / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant convicted on all five charges and fined; s 10 dismissal application refused; Defendant ordered to pay Prosecutor's costs.
Legal Topics
['pollution of Waters' 'breach of Development Consent' 'sediment Run Off From Building Site' 'section 10 Dismissal Application' 'mitigating Factors' 'totality Principle' 'general Deterrence']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['pollution of Waters' 'breach of Development Consent' 'sediment Run Off From Building Site' 'section 10 Dismissal Application' 'mitigating Factors' 'totality Principle' 'general Deterrence']

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

Prosecution for Pollution of Waters and Failure to Carry Out Development in Accordance With Development Consent / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order dismissing a charge under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 should be made' 'What penalties should be imposed for the five offences' 'Whether environmental harm was caused or likely to be caused by sediment laden water entering the stormwater system' 'Whether practical measures were available to prevent, control, abate or mitigate the harm' 'Whether the totality principle should be applied to the five related offences']

Ratio Decidendi

The s 10 application was refused because, although the environmental consequences were trivial or minor, the Defendant's culpability was not trivial, the actions giving rise to the offence were deliberate, the offences were strict liability offences, and there were no extenuating circumstances. The Court imposed fines because sediment laden water entered the stormwater system, the harm was minor but foreseeable, the Defendant controlled the causes of the offences, and further practical measures could have been taken despite the Defendant's efforts. Mitigating factors, including early guilty pleas, contrition and remorse, no prior record, efforts to control sediment, and substantial costs,...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted on all five charges and fined; s 10 dismissal application refused; Defendant ordered to pay Prosecutor's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the offences with which it is charged.' "In matter no 50060 of 2003 the Defendant is fined the sum of $6,500 to be paid to the Registrar of the Court within 28 days of today's date." "In matter no 50088 of 2003 the Defendant is fined the sum of $4,500 to be paid to the Registrar of...