Legal Research
Cases
Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram & Partners Pty Limited

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram & Partners Pty Limited

Case [2017] NSWLEC 170

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram and Partners Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 170
Case: [2017] NSWLEC 170
Decision Date: 08 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Defendant is found guilty of the offence identified in the summons dated 19 January 2017.

(2) Pursuant to s 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the charge is dismissed.

(3) The Defendant is to pay the Prosecutor’s costs as agreed or assessed.

(4) The exhibits be returned.

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.

Actions

Citations

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram and Partners Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 170

Most Recent Citation

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Shoalhaven Starches Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 23

Cases Citing This Decision

Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v SingTel Optus Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 44
Citation 1 (Para 51)

…al 2 Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 188 (“ Aston ” – per Craig J), and Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram & Partners Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 170 (“ Perram ” – per Pain J).…
Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Shoalhaven Starches Pty Ltd [2018] NSWLEC 23
Citation 2 (Para 34)

…reach of s 147 is to be regarded. It is to be observed that, in Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram & Partners Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 170, Pain J was faced with quite different circumstances (ones which caused her Honour to utilise the power available to her pursuant to s 10 of the Sent…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

R v Thomson [2020] NSWDC 577
Citation 1 (Para 45)

…The Defendant pleaded guilty, which is to be taken into account pursuant to ss 21(3)(k) and 22 of the CSP Act. R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 settled the position that the discretionary discount on the sentence for an early guilty plea would ordinarily be within the range of 10 - 25%.…
The Queen v Putra Hendra [2014] ACTSC 102
Citation 2 (Para 21)

…ing their importance and making a “value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case”, Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26] unanimously following Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] per McHugh J. The sentence must reflect all…
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54
Citation 3 (Para 39)

…including in the setting of deterrent civil penalties, see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640; [2013] HCA 54 at [65]. It is submitted that while the objects of the EPA Act are general in nature, they still indicate Parliament’s intention that applications fo…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 4 (Para 21)

…and making a “value judgment as to what is the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case”, Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26] unanimously following Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] per McHugh J. The sentence must reflect all the relevant ob…
R v Mark Thomas Garvin [2009] ACTSC 87
Citation 5 (Para 3)

…he offence is one of strict liability. A plea of guilty means that the Defendant is taken to admit the essential elements of the offence, R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at 275.…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 6 (Para 21)

…tors of the case”, Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26] unanimously following Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] per McHugh J. The sentence must reflect all the relevant objective circumstances of the offence and subjective circumstances of the defendant, se…
Morawski v State Rail Authority [2000] NSWCCA 309
Citation 7 (Para 45)

…ndant pleaded guilty, which is to be taken into account pursuant to ss 21(3)(k) and 22 of the CSP Act. R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 settled the position that the discretionary discount on the sentence for an early guilty plea would ordinarily be within the range of 10 - 25%. The D…
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Citation 8 (Para 3)

…strict liability. A plea of guilty means that the Defendant is taken to admit the essential elements of the offence, R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at 275.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 9 (Para 21)

…tive circumstances of the defendant, see Veen v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458; [1979] HCA 7 at 490 and Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 at 472-473, 490-491. The sentence should not exceed what is “justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the ligh…
Veen v The Queen [1979] HCA 7
Citation 10 (Para 21)

…t all the relevant objective circumstances of the offence and subjective circumstances of the defendant, see Veen v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458; [1979] HCA 7 at 490 and Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 at 472-473, 490-491. The sentence should not exceed what is “justified as appropriat…
Callaghan v The Queen [1952] HCA 55
Citation 11 (Para 32)

…at [27]. Criminal negligence is negligence to a very high degree and must be established beyond reasonable doubt, Callaghan v R (1952) 87 CLR 115; [1952] HCA 55 at 122.…
Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL Energy Limited; Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL Upstream Infrastructure investments Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 2
Citation 12 (Para 43)

…lanning and Environment v AGL Energy Limited; Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL Upstream Infrastructure Investments Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 2 the defendants pleaded guilty to eleven offences of failing to disclose political donations. Each offence related to a separate development applicati…
Director-General, Department of Planning and Infrastructure v Aston Coal 2 Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 188
Citation 13 (Para 26)

…closures “does not excuse the offence” ( Director-General, Department of Planning and Infrastructure v Aston Coal 2 Pty Ltd (2013) 199 LGERA 176; [2013] NSWLEC 188 at [58]) and it cannot be said to have been ignorant of the requirement to comply with s 147 of the EPA Act.…
Council of the Municipality of Kiama v Pacific Real Estate (Warilla) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 191
Citation 14 (Para 23)

…void harm and the defendant’s control over the causes of the harm, per Council of the Municipality of Kiama v Pacific Real Estate (Warilla) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 191 at [67].…
Gittany Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 242
Citation 15 (Para 23)

…Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 234; [2006] NSWLEC 34 at [163] and Gittany Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (2006) 145 LGERA 189; [2006] NSWLEC 242 at [110], including the maximum penalty, objective harmfulness of the defendant's actions, reasons for the commission of the offence and state of min…
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34
Citation 16 (Para 23)

…factors to determine the objective gravity of an offence under the EPA Act were identified in Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 234; [2006] NSWLEC 34 at [163] and Gittany Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council (2006) 145 LGERA 189; [2006] NSWLEC 242 at [110], including the maximum penalty…

AI Chat coming soon