Chamwell Pty Limited v Strathfield Council

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read
Reported Decision: (2007) 151 LGERA 92

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Garrett v Williams, Craig Walter [2007] NSWLEC 96
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Stephen Garrett

DEFENDANT
Craig Walter Williams
FILE NUMBER(S): 50015; 50016; 50017 of 2005
CORAM: Preston CJ
KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- destroy Aboriginal objects - damage Aboriginal place - pleas of guilty - restorative justice intervention by Court prior to sentence - restorative process of victim/offender mediation - voluntary participation by Aboriginal people of area in which offences occurred and offender in restorative conference assisted by trained facilitator - relevance to sentencing considerations
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A, s 5(1), s 21A(2), s 21A(3), s 22(1), s 23
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) s 2A(1), s 84, s 90(1)-(5), Pt 6.
CASES CITED: Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 (17 August 2006);
Douar v The Queen (2005) 159 A Crim R 154;
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220;
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 (30 November 2006);
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
DATES OF HEARING: 28/09/2006, 29/09/2006, 05/10/2006, 09/10/2006, 10/10/2006, 14/12/2006
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

27 February 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR
Ms E Fullerton SC with Mr T Howard
SOLICITORS
Department of Environment and Conservation

DEFENDANT
Mr P Clay (barrister)
SOLICITORS
Herbert Geer & Rundle



JUDGMENT:

        THE LAND AND
        ENVIRONMENT COURT
        OF NEW SOUTH WALES

        PRESTON CJ

        27 FEBRUARY 2007

        50015, 50016 and 50017 OF 2005

        STEPHEN GARRETT V CRAIG WALTER WILLIAMS

        JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The Aboriginal people have inhabited the country around Broken Hill in far western New South Wales for tens of thousands of years. Evidence of their habitation continues today. There are artefacts scattered across the countryside. The artefacts include evidence of quartz stone quarrying, working and tool manufacture, such as stone blades, flakes, cores or flaked pieces. There are ovens and food processing equipment including grinding dishes and mortar and pestle type equipment. But the most tangible evidence to the Aboriginal people is the country itself and its landscape features. Prominent amongst the landscape features is what European settlers named the Pinnacles. The Pinnacles are three unusual pointy hills that dominate the skyline south of Broken Hill. To the Aboriginal people, the Pinnacles are central to a living Bronze Wing Pigeon story line.

2 The importance to the Aboriginal people of the country around the Pinnacles was recognised in 1996 by a declaration that the Pinnacles be an Aboriginal place protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW).

3 The rocks and landforms that are important to the Aboriginal people have also attracted the interest of geologists and miners. The geology of the Broken Hill area is rich with valuable base metals particularly silver, lead and zinc. The area has become one of Australia’s most important mining areas.

4 One of the mines established was Pinnacle Mines. As the name suggests, it is based in and around…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chamwell Pty Limited v Strathfield Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] NSWLEC 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chamwell Pty Limited v Strathfield Council involved the sentencing of Craig Walter Williams, the sole director and secretary of Pinnacle Mines Pty Limited, for offences under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW). Williams pleaded guilty to charges of knowingly causing the destruction of Aboriginal objects and damaging an Aboriginal place. The court considered the objective circumstances of the offences, including the maximum penalty and the harm caused, and concluded that while the offences were serious, the harm caused was not substantial enough to warrant a higher penalty. The court also examined the subjective circumstances of the defendant, including his lack of prior criminal history, good character, plea of guilty, and expression of contrition and remorse. The court further took into account the results of a restorative justice conference that involved representatives of the Aboriginal community and Williams, which aimed to address the harm caused and promote reconciliation.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the objectives of sentencing, including deterrence, denunciation, and punishment. The court decided that a fine was the appropriate penalty for each offence, with discounts applied for the defendant's plea of guilty. The court also considered the costs incurred by the defendant as a result of the restorative justice conference, as well as the offers made by the defendant to the Aboriginal people of the area. The final orders included fines for each offence, as well as an order for the defendant to pay the prosecutor's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.