Legal Research
Cases
Harris v Harrison

Harris v Harrison

Case [2013] NSWCCA 314 13 December 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Environmental Regulation

Criminal Law

Environmental Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Harris v Harrison [2013] NSWCCA 314
Hearing dates: 9 September 2013
Decision date: 13 December 2013
Before: Beazley P at [1];
McCallum J at [62];
Schmidt J at [63]
Decision:
(1) Order 6 made by Pepper J on 17 July 2013 be stayed pending the determination of the appeal;
(2) Order the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - offence under the Water Management Act 2000, s 91K(1) - plea of guilty - sentence - publication order made pursuant to the Water Management Act, s 353G(1)(a) - application for stay of publication order.
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - offence under the Water Management Act 2000, s 91K(1) - plea of guilty - sentence - publication order made pursuant to the Water Management Act, s 353G(1)(a) - application for stay of publication order - principles governing grant of stay of orders made by the Land and Environment Court in its criminal jurisdiction.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Interpretation Act 1987
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Water Management Act 2000
Cases Cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Harrison v Baring (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 145
Harrison v Harris (No 3) [2013] NSWLEC 140
O'Brien v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 312; 74 ACSR 324
Porteous & Others v Inspector McMartin [2005] NSWIRComm 122
Stampalia v The Stewards of The Western Australian Trotting and Association & Anor [1999] WASC 7
Trlin v Marac Finance Australia Ltd (Court of Appeal, 4 March 1985, unreported)
Waller v Todorovic (Court of Appeal, 21 December 1979, unreported)
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ronald Norman Harris (Applicant)
Russel Harrison (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
A A Henskens; S Docker (Applicant)
M G McHugh; B G Docking (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Kemp Strang (Applicant)
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/247685
Decision under appeal

Citation:

Harrison v Harris [2013] NSWLEC 105

Date of Decision:

2013-07-17 00:00:00

Before:

Pepper J

File Number(s):

50028/12

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant, Ronald Harris, after a plea of guilty, was convicted of an offence under the Water Management Act 2000, s 91K(1) in that he intentionally or recklessly interfered with or disconnected metering equipment that had been installed in connection with water supply work. The sentencing judge imposed a fine of $28,000 and, relevantly, made an order pursuant to the Water Management Act, s 353G(1)(a) that Mr Harris, within 28 days from the date of judgment, place an advertisement, in the terms specified in an annexure to the Court's judgment, in two rural newspapers stating, inter alia, that he had been found guilty of the offence and fined (the publication order). The applicant is appealing the sentence imposed by the Land and Environment Court after he entered a plea of guilty. By interlocutory application, the applicant sought a stay of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harris v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Harris v Harrison [2013] NSWCCA 314
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 314
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harris v Harrison involved the defendant, Mr Harrison, who pleaded guilty to an offence under section 91K(1) of the Water Management Act 2000. The matter came before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which exercised its criminal jurisdiction. The crux of the dispute was the imposition of a publication order on Mr Harrison pursuant to section 353G(1)(a) of the same Act, which mandates the publication of details regarding the offence and conviction. Mr Harrison subsequently applied for a stay of the publication order, arguing that it was disproportionate and would cause him significant hardship.

The court was required to determine whether the publication order was appropriate under the circumstances and, if so, whether a stay of that order was justified. The legal issues encompassed the scope and application of the Water Management Act, the principles governing the imposition of publication orders, and the criteria for granting a stay of such orders. The court had to balance the public interest in disseminating information about serious environmental offences against the personal impact on the offender.

The Land and Environment Court held that the publication order was warranted given the nature of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct. However, the court recognised the potential for disproportionate consequences if the order were not stayed. It concluded that while the public interest in this case was strong, the personal hardship that the order would cause to Mr Harrison and his family was significant. The court ultimately decided that the stay should be granted, considering the specific circumstances of Mr Harrison’s case and the potential for undue hardship. The court’s decision was based on a careful balancing of the relevant statutory objectives and principles.

The final order of the court was to stay the publication order made under section 353G(1)(a) of the Water Management Act 2000, effective immediately. The court’s ruling provided clarity on the application of publication orders in environmental cases and the factors to consider when deciding on a stay of such orders.

Orders