160 Leicester Pty Ltd, Shaqiri, Kutlesovski v City of Melbourne, VBA, EPA

The matter involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on 160 Leicester Pty Ltd, along with the individuals Shaqiri and Kutlesovski, who were charged with depositing industrial waste at a site not licensed to accept such waste, failing to comply with a Minor Works Pollution Abatement Notice, using land in contravention of a planning scheme, and conducting building work without proper notice, permits, and within prescribed hours. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appellants contested the severity of the sentences imposed on them, arguing that they should be considered as a single entity due to their joint involvement in the activities leading to the charges.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were excessive, considering the totality principle, and whether the court had adequately taken into account the relevant sentencing principles and circumstances. The appellants argued that their actions, although serious, were not of the highest culpability, and they had no prior criminal convictions. They also contended that the sentences amounted to double punishment because they were being punished twice for the same offence. Additionally, the appellants raised concerns about the lack of genuine remorse and the consideration of extra-curial punishment.

The court considered the totality principle and the applicable sentencing principles, including the maximum penalty for the offences and the culpability of the appellants. The court acknowledged that the breaches were calculated and deliberate, motivated by the prospect of profit, and constituted a serious example of breaches of building and planning laws. However, the court found that the sentences were not excessive when considering the totality of the appellants' offending and the need to deter and denounce such behaviour. The court also noted the lack of genuine remorse and the absence of extra-curial punishment as factors to be considered. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the sentences imposed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeals and uphold the sentences imposed on 160 Leicester Pty Ltd, Shaqiri, and Kutlesovski. The court found that the sentences were appropriate in light of the appellants' culpability, the seriousness of the offending, and the need to deter and denounce such behaviour. The court also took into account the totality principle and the lack of genuine remorse, but ultimately concluded that the sentences were not excessive and should be upheld.