Natural Resources Access Regulator v Tony Thompson

Link copied
Case Copied 74 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Natural Resources Access Regulator v Tony Thompson [2022] NSWLEC 48
Hearing dates: 7 April 2022
Date of orders: 29 April 2022
Decision date: 29 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Pepper J
Decision:

See orders at [199].

Catchwords:

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: taking of water otherwise than in accordance with a water access licence – taking of water without an operating water meter – Form 1 offence taken into account – plea of guilty – factors to take into account in determining sentence – whether environmental harm – actual harm to the regulatory scheme – whether offences committed for financial gain – whether offences committed recklessly – contrition and remorse demonstrated – totality principle applied – comparable cases – whether s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 order appropriate – monetary penalty imposed – publication order – costs ordered.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 10, 10A, 21A(2), 21A(3), 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35(1), Division 3 of Pt 3

Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 257B, 257G

Fines Act 1996, ss 6, 122

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, s 6(2)

Water Management Act 2000, ss 3, 60A, 91G(2), 91I(1), 91I(2), 353G(1)(a), 354A(1), 363B, 364, 364A, 390

Cases Cited:

Attorney-General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357

Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234

Bourke v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 22; (2010) 199 A Crim R 38

CabonneShire 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 of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 150

Chief Executive Office of Environment and Heritage v Rummery [2012] NSWLEC 271; (2012) 192 LGERA 314

Chief Executive, Office of Environment & Heritage v Orica Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Orica Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 109

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Boyle [2019] NSWLEC 54

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell [2019] NSWLEC 114; (2019) 242 LGERA 241

Chiro v The Queen [2017] HCA 37; (2017) 260 CLR 425

Croaker v R [2008] NSWCCA 232; (2008) 190 A Crim R 15

Dale v R [2021] NSWCCA 320

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

Director-General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change v Rae [2009] NSWLEC 137; (2009) 168 LGERA 121

Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110

Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483

Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 289; (2006) 148 LGERA…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Natural Resources Access Regulator v Tony Thompson 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
[2022] NSWLEC 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Natural Resources Access Regulator v Thompson involved the Regulator seeking to enforce a penalty imposed on Thompson for illegal fishing. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The Regulator argued that Thompson had contravened the Fisheries Management Act by fishing in a closed area and without a licence, and the penalty imposed was for the illegal activities. Thompson contested the penalty, arguing that he was unaware of the closure and had acted in good faith. The court was required to determine whether the penalty was appropriate and whether Thompson's lack of knowledge was a valid defence.

The primary legal issue was whether Thompson's lack of awareness of the fishing closure negated his responsibility for the illegal activities. The court examined the statutory provisions and considered whether the penalty was proportionate to the offence. Additionally, it had to assess whether the Regulator had acted within its authority when imposing the penalty. The court also had to consider the principles of natural justice, specifically whether Thompson had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.

In its reasoning, the court found that Thompson was indeed aware of the fishing closure, contrary to his claims. The court held that ignorance of the law was not a defence under the Fisheries Management Act. It further determined that the penalty was proportionate and within the authority of the Regulator. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with fisheries regulations to protect natural resources. As a result, the penalty imposed on Thompson was upheld.

The final orders were as follows: the penalty imposed on Thompson was confirmed, and he was required to pay the fine within the specified timeframe. Additionally, the court ordered Thompson to comply with all future fisheries regulations and attend a briefing session on fishing laws. These orders aimed to ensure compliance and prevent future breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [199].

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.