Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
Issued: 27 April 2021
Download PDF (PDF, 138.3 KB)
Under s. 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a court that finds a person guilty of an offence may, without proceeding to conviction, make an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed. Section 10(3) lists four factors that the court must consider:
Section 10(1)(a) orders are also available to corporate offenders (applying s. 21, Interpretation Act 1987).
In the recent decision of Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v Leda Manorstead Pty Ltd (No 5) [2020] NSWLEC 65, the defendant was found guilty of three offences against s. 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ("EPA Act") and pleaded guilty to a further charge. The defendant made an application for a s. 10(1)(a) order and sought Pepper J's early ruling.
In dismissing the application, Pepper J found that an order under s. 10(1) is "usually rare" in the case of environmental offences: [35]. Where these are strict liability offences, such orders are considered appropriate in only limited circumstances: [37]-[38]. This is to emphasise general deterrence and "give effect to" the relevant regulatory regime (eg. Blue Mountains City Council v Carlon [2008] NSWLEC 296 at [70]-[71]).
Section 10(1)(a) orders generally, although not always, apply to offences of a trivial nature (Leda at [34]). Whether an offence is considered trivial will turn on the facts that give rise to the offence (Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 at [25]). In the environmental context, if an offence is a technical, unintended or minor breach of the legislation it may be considered trivial (Penrith City Council v Re-Gen Industries Pty Ltd (2000) 107 GERA 331 at [30]-[31]).
The subjective circumstances of the offender may also be influential in the environmental context, even if the offence is not considered trivial. That was the case in Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v T W Perram & Partners Pty Limited (2017) LGERA 169. The defendant pleaded guilty to a strict liability offence under the EPA Act. The defendant had received, but failed to disclose, donations from persons with a financial interest in an application to modify an approval for a major project. Justice Pain dismissed the charge under s. 10(1)(a), finding that:
Although uncommon, s. 10(1)(a) orders are available for environmental offences, especially where the defendant can show the offending is "trivial" or can mount a strong subjective case.
Regulators should be mindful of the availability of s. 10(1)(a) orders and be ready to respond to defence submissions seeking such orders. This may be by preparing evidence on how the offence causes harm to the regulatory regime and submissions in favour of general deterrence.
Sarah-jane Morris, Director
Regulatory & Environment practice group
Sarah-jane.Morris@cso.nsw.gov.au
02 9497 9390
Josh Pallas, Senior Solicitor
Regulatory & Environment practice group
josh.pallas@cso.nsw.gov.au
02 9474 9445
Rosalind Acland, Solicitor
Regulatory & Environment practice group
rosalind.acland@cso.nsw.gov.au
02 9474 9298
To subscribe to Regulatory & Environment Insights please email csomarketing@cso.nsw.gov.au.
16 Nov 2022