New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of contaminant

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2021

TRENT v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 123

Citation

[2021] NZCA 123
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the difference in maximum monetary penalties between corporate and individual offenders does not impose a mandatory requirement to proportionately scale an individual's starting point by reference to the corporate maximum; sentencing remains a discretionary exercise and absent material error or a question of public importance or miscarriage of justice leave to bring a second appeal is declined.
23 Jun 2020

ROBERTS v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1429

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1429
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the conviction appeal because the Crown expert evidence, supported by factual findings about the mine's size, lack of mitigation, and defective water control, legitimately allowed the inference that mine runoff contaminated the tributary; the $60,000 fine was upheld as within sentencing discretion; however the District Court's above‑scale costs award was unjustified under s13(3) and was quashed and replaced with an award limited to scale solicitor costs and standard witness fees.
20 Apr 2020

TRENT v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL (CHRISTCHURCH) [2020] NZHC 767

Citation

[2020] NZHC 767
Court

High Court

The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err: differences in statutory maximum fines do not require proportional starting points between corporate and individual defendants; sentencing must reflect individual culpability, harm and other s8 Sentencing Act factors; the $97,000 fine for the appellant was within range and not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

TRENT v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 123

ROBERTS v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1429

TRENT v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL (CHRISTCHURCH) [2020] NZHC 767