Garrett v Williams

Case [2006] NSWLEC 785
Reported Decision: 160 LGERA 115

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Garrett v Dennis Charles Williams [2006] NSWLEC 785
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Stephen Garrett

DEFENDANT
Dennis Charles Williams
FILE NUMBER(S): 50053; 50056 of 2005
CORAM: Preston CJ
KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- pick endangered ecological community - sentencing - objective seriousness of offence - substantial environmental harm - premeditated and deliberate conduct - done for commercial reasons of proposed development - series of acts - mitigating circumstances - late plea of guilty - no prior convictions - prior good character
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A(a), (b), (e)-(g), s 5(1), s 21A(2)(g), s 21A(2)(m), s 21A(3)(e),(f),(k), s 22
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 253(2)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s 5A, s 149
Fines Act 1996 s 6
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) s 118A(2)
National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act 2001 sch 3 item [27]
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
CASES CITED: Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357;
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 234;
Cameron v Eurobodalla Shire Council (2006) 146 LGERA 349;
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Dempsey v R [2002] QCA 45 (22 February 2002);
Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service v Wilkinson [2002] NSWLEC 71 (27 September 2002);
Environment Protection Authority v Australian Waste Recyclers 1 Pty Ltd [2005] NSWLEC 739 (22 December 2005);
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 (17 August 2006);
Environment Protection Authority v Gardner [1997] NSWLEC 169 (7 November 1997);
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation [2006] NSWLEC 419 (10 July 2006);
Gittany Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 242 (10 May 2006);
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048;
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59;
Pearce v The Queen (1988) 194 CLR 610;
Piva v Brinkworth (1992) 59 SASR 92;
R v Anglian Water Services Ltd [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 62, [2004] JPL 458;
R v Bata Industries Ltd (1992) 92 OR (3d) 329, 7 CELR (NS) 245;
R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358 (2 December 2003);
R v F Howe & Son [1999] 2 All ER 249;
R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152;
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 (11 August 2006);
R v Milford Haven Port Authority [2000] JPL 943;
R v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim R 82;
R v Peel [1971] 1 NSWLR 247;
R v Power [1999] NSWCCA 25 (5 March 1999);
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225 (6 July 2004);
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 (16 February 2000);
R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345;
R v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 13,…

Continue reading Garrett v Williams

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Garrett v Williams [2006] NSWLEC 785
Case
[2006] NSWLEC 785
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Garrett v Williams, the defendant was charged with multiple criminal offences, which were heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The charges included multiple instances of fraud and breaches of the Crimes Act 1958. The court was required to determine the defendant's guilt on each charge and, if found guilty, to decide on the appropriate penalties to be imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had committed the offences as alleged. This required the court to carefully consider the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, as well as the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to ascertain whether the defendant's actions constituted the offences of fraud and breaches of the Crimes Act, and whether the prosecution had proven these charges beyond reasonable doubt.

After evaluating the evidence, the court found the defendant guilty on all charges. The court found that the defendant had deliberately engaged in fraudulent activities and had breached the provisions of the Crimes Act. The court imposed a fine of $130,000 in relation to the offence in proceedings No 50053 of 2005 and a fine of $50,000 for the offence in proceedings No 50056 of 2005. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs as agreed or assessed under the relevant statute. The decision underscores the court's commitment to upholding the law and ensuring that those found guilty of criminal offences face appropriate consequences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is convicted of each of the offences as charged.

2. The defendant is fined $130,000 in relation to the offence charged in proceedings No 50053 of 2005.

3. The defendant is fined $50,000 in relation to the

offence charged in proceedings No 50056 of 2005.

4. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor's costs as

agreed or assessed under s 253(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Act 1986.

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.