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: 18 December 2020
Download PDF (PDF, 131.0 KB)
The state of mind of an offender at the time of committing an offence is a relevant consideration when imposing a sentence, even when the offence is a crime of strict liability.
A strict liability offence committed intentionally, negligently or recklessly will be objectively more serious than one committed accidentally.
In crimes of strict liability, while mens rea is not an element of the offence, an offender's state of mind may still be relevant. In assessing the objective seriousness of an offence on sentence, the Court may have regard to circumstances including the offender's state of mind and reasons for committing the offence.
In Chahoud, the appellant appealed the severity of a sentence imposed by the Local Court for four offences against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for carrying out prohibited development on land. The charges, brought by Penrith City Council, related to the construction and use of a large shed on a property; and use of the property as a truck depot for the appellant's transport freight company.
After a concrete slab was laid for the shed without approval, the Council issued the appellant with a penalty infringement notice ("PIN") which referred only to "the construction of a concrete slab that does not have prior consent". The appellant paid the PIN but thereafter continued to complete the construction of the shed.
The appellant pleaded guilty to all four charges and was fined $70,000 in total. The appellant's unchallenged evidence on sentence included that she:
The Land and Environment Court determined that the penalties imposed by the Local Court were excessive and instead imposed fines totalling $51,000. In relation to the appellant's state of mind, the LEC observed that:
In considering whether or not to challenge evidence of state of mind in the context of strict liability offences, prosecutors should be aware that such evidence may impact the Court's assessment of objective seriousness and the ultimate sentence imposed.
This consideration is subject to the principle in in R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 at 387 that an offender cannot be punished for a more serious offence than the one for which they were charged.
Sarah-jane Morris, Director
02 9497 9390
Gillian Buchan, Senior Solicitor
02 9497 9294
Katrina Frearson, Senior Solicitor
02 9497 9558
To subscribe to Regulatory & Environment Insights please email: email@example.com.
16 Nov 2022
We acknowledge Aboriginal people as the First Nations Peoples of NSW and pay our respects to Elders past, present, and future.
Informed by lessons of the past, Department of Communities and Justice is improving how we work with Aboriginal people and communities. We listen and learn from the knowledge, strength and resilience of Stolen Generations Survivors, Aboriginal Elders and Aboriginal communities.
You can access our apology to the Stolen Generations.