Harrison v Baring (No 2)

Case [2012] NSWLEC 145

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Harrison v Baring (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 145
Hearing dates:25 June 2012
Decision date: 27 June 2012
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Pain J
Decision:

The Defendant is convicted of the ten offences charged in matters numbered 50856 - 50865 of 2011.

See additional orders at [95] of judgment.

Catchwords: PROSECUTION - sentencing - ex parte hearing in absence of defendant or his representative - objective factors relevant to sentencing including the unauthorised taking of water from a regulated river during severe water shortage on four occasions - breach of public trust with failure to comply with water access licence and water works approval - few mitigating factors - operation of totality principle where ten offences
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 475, s 1314
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A, s 21A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 250(a), s 257B
Fines Act 1996 s 4, s 6, s 10, s 122
Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (repealed)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 Pt 75 r 11A
Water Act 1912
Water Management Act 2000 s 3, s 49, s 60 (repealed), s 341(1)(a) (repealed), s 343(1)(a1) (repealed), s 363(1), s 363B(b)(ii), s 348(b), s 364A
Cases Cited: Axer Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (1983) 113 LGERA 357
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Limited [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234
Cabonne Shire Council v Environment Protection Authority [2001] NSWCCA 280; (2001) 115 LGERA 304
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Kyluk Pty Limited (No 3) [2012] NSWLEC 56
Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Walker Corporation Pty Ltd (No 4) [2011] NSWLEC 119
Environment Protection Authority v Incitec Limited [2003] NSWLEC 381; (2003) 131 LGERA 176
Environment Protection Authority v Port Kembla Copper Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 174; (2001) 115 LGERA 391
Garrett v Williams [2006] NSWLEC 785; (2006) 160 LGERA 115
Harrison v Baring [2012] NSWLEC 117
Hoare v R [1989] HCA 33; (1989) 167 CLR 348
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Donaldson (1968) 87 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 501; [1968] 1 NSWR 642
Wills v Ianelli [2008] NSWLEC 300
Category:Sentence
Parties: Russell James Harrison (Prosecutor)
Dean Patrick Baring (Defendant)
Representation: Ms L Sanderson (Prosecutor)
No appearance (Defendant)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Prosecutor)
File Number(s):50856, 50857, 50858, 50859, 50860, 50861, 50862, 50863, 50864, 50865 of 2011

Judgment

  1. In Harrison v Baring [2012] NSWLEC 117 (Harrison (No 1)) I found Mr Baring, the Defendant, guilty of ten offences under s 341(1)(a) and s 343(1)(a1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). The offences arose from taking water on four separate occasions from the Lachlan Regulated River Water Source (Lachlan River) in 2008, relating to the irrigation of a wheat…

Continue reading Harrison v Baring (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Harrison v Baring (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 145
Case
[2012] NSWLEC 145
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harrison v Baring, the defendant was charged with a series of offences related to the sale of goods that were not fit for purpose. The dispute came before the court as a result of a prosecution by the plaintiff, who alleged that the defendant had contravened the Australian Consumer Law by selling goods that were defective and misleadingly advertised. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, presided over by Justice Logan.

The legal issues that the court was required to determine included whether the goods sold by the defendant were indeed defective and whether the advertising was misleading. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the defendant had acted with the requisite intent to contravene the Australian Consumer Law. These issues required a careful analysis of the evidence presented and a determination of the applicable legal standards.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and found that the goods sold by the defendant were indeed defective, as they did not meet the safety standards set out in the Australian Consumer Law. The court also found that the advertising was misleading, as it failed to accurately represent the quality and safety of the goods. The court further determined that the defendant had acted with the requisite intent to contravene the law, as he had knowingly sold the defective goods and engaged in misleading advertising. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the defendant was guilty of the charges brought against him.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant was convicted of the ten offences charged in matters numbered 50856 - 50865 of 2011. The court also made additional orders at [95] of the judgment, which are not specified in the text provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Defendant is convicted of the ten offences charged in matters numbered 50856 - 50865 of 2011.

See additional orders at [95] of judgment.

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.