R v The Grape House Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWDC 304

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v The Grape House Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 304
Hearing dates: 1 August 2025
Date of orders: 8 August 2025
Decision date: 08 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
For Sequences 1-6 individual fines totalling $1,050,000 (see [113])

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentencing – Dishonestly describing to Commonwealth officials the source of table grapes for export to New Zealand so as to avoid cold storage requirement on grapes from non-fruit fly pest-free-areas – Dishonestly influencing public official by false representations – Damage to national interest of Australia in context of Australian-New Zealand Bilateral Quarantine Arrangement – Real risk to both Australia and New Zealand growers – Significant objective seriousness – Need for general deterrence – Subjective case weak – Consideration of concepts such as character, remorse, and contrition in context of corporate offender – Penalties – Fines – “Financial circumstances” or “means” of Offender – Totality

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A, s 16BA, s 16C
Criminal Code (Cth) s 12, s 135.1(7)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General's Application Under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Azari v R; Al-Talebi v R [2021] NSWCCA 199
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
De Lorenzo v DPP (Cth) [2017] VSCA 270
DPP v Hamman (Unreported, NSWCCA, 1 December 1998)
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
Giourtalis v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 216
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Lazarus v R [2023] NSWCCA 214
Morex Meat Australia Pty Ltd & Doube v R (1995) 129 ALR 546
R v El Rashid (unreported, NSWCCA, 7 April 1995)
R v Lamella [2014] NSWCCA 122
R v Leonard Properties [2019] QDC 209
R v Moxon [2015] QCA 65
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284
R v Scook (2008) 185 A Crim R 164
R v Singleton [2019] QCA 302
R v Zhu [2013] NSWSC 127
Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75
Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762 [1991] ATPR 41 – 076

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
The Grape House Pty Ltd (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McEniery / C Nicholson (Crown)
G McCormick / G O’Shea (Offender)
Solicitors:
CDPP (Crown)
Goldsmiths Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/96336
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The importance of plant and animal export certification regimes

In 2015, in the context of the International Plant Protection Convention, the Queensland Court of Appeal said:

“The Commonwealth legislative regime as to export inspection and certification was aimed at maintaining Australia’s highly favourable plant health status and wide access to overseas markets. Australia was a signatory to the IPPC [International Plant Protection Convention] with the purpose of protecting plants internationally by preventing the introduction and spread of pests. […] The applicant’s actions risked compromising the integrity of Australia’s export inspection and certification system and exposed Australia to criticism for noncompliance with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v The Grape House Pty Ltd 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: [2025] NSWDC 304
Decision Date: 08 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Grape House Pty Ltd was found guilty of providing false information to Commonwealth officials regarding the origin of table grapes exported to New Zealand, thereby evading the cold storage requirement for grapes from areas not free from fruit fly pests. The case was heard and decided in the relevant Australian court. The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate sentencing for the company's actions, including the objective seriousness of the crime, the need for general deterrence, and the financial capacity of the offender to pay the fines imposed.

The court addressed the significant objective seriousness of the company's actions, highlighting the real risk posed to both Australian and New Zealand growers due to the potential introduction of fruit fly pests. The false representations made by the company were deemed to have damaged the national interests of Australia under the Australian-New Zealand Bilateral Quarantine Arrangement. Although the subjective case presented by the company was weak, the court considered factors such as the company's character, remorse, and contrition. The penalties, including fines, were determined by taking into account the financial circumstances or means of the company. The court concluded that the totality of the fines imposed should reflect the gravity of the offence.

The court ordered individual fines for each of the six sequences of offending, totaling $1,050,000. The decision emphasised the need for the penalties to serve both as a punishment and a deterrent against similar future conduct by the company and others in the industry. The court's final orders were that the company pay the specified fines for the six sequences of offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

For Sequences 1-6 individual fines totalling $1,050,000 (see [113])

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v The Grape House Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 304
Hearing dates:	1 August 2025
Date of orders:	8 August 2025
Decision date:	08 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	For Sequences 1-6 individual fines totalling $1,050,000 (see [113])
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentencing – Dishonestly describing to Commonwealth officials the source of table grapes for export to New Zealand so as to avoid cold storage requirement on grapes from non-fruit fly pest-free-areas – Dishonestly influencing public official by false representations – Damage to national interest of Australia in context of Australian-New Zealand Bilateral Quarantine Arrangement – Real risk to both Australia and New Zealand growers – Significant objective seriousness – Need for general deterrence – Subjective case weak – Consideration of concepts such as character, remorse, and contrition in context of corporate offender – Penalties – Fines – “Financial circumstances” or “means” of Offender – Totality
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A, s 16BA, s 16C Criminal Code (Cth) s 12, s 135.1(7)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General's Application Under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Azari v R; Al-Talebi v R [2021] NSWCCA 199 Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 De Lorenzo v DPP (Cth) [2017] VSCA 270 DPP v Hamman (Unreported, NSWCCA, 1 December 1998) Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246 Giourtalis v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 216 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616 Lazarus v R [2023] NSWCCA 214 Morex Meat Australia Pty Ltd & Doube v R (1995) 129 ALR 546 R v El Rashid (unreported, NSWCCA, 7 April 1995) R v Lamella [2014] NSWCCA 122 R v Leonard Properties [2019] QDC 209 R v Moxon [2015] QCA 65 R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550 R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284 R v Scook (2008) 185 A Crim R 164 R v Singleton [2019] QCA 302 R v Zhu [2013] NSWSC 127 Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 75 Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 762 [1991] ATPR 41 – 076
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) The Grape House Pty Ltd (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: P McEniery / C Nicholson (Crown) G McCormick / G O’Shea (Offender) Solicitors: CDPP (Crown) Goldsmiths Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/96336
Publication restriction:	Nil