Campbelltown City Council v Mhanna

Campbelltown City Council v Mhanna - [2010] NSWLEC 57 - NSWLEC 2010 case summary — Zoe

[54]

(a) the defendant was not a principal in a financial or ownership sense; (b) this is more a case of misguided zeal in assisting a client in difficulty. The client was under financial stress, and about to have a development consent lapse. Difficulty and delay was being experienced in finalising an easement which was apparently all that prevented the issue of a construction certificate; (c) the defendant believed the issue of a construction certificate was imminent; (d) the defendant stood to gain little or nothing by his actions nor did he do so; (e) the defendant is contrite and has apologised; (f) the defendant accepts full personal responsibility for his actions; (g) the works were carried out over a very short period and are minimal in extent and otherwise in accordance with the development consent. There is no adverse visual impact or adverse impact on the amenity or the neighbourhood; (h) the defendant is prepared to make amends by remediating the site subject to the approval of the owner and the council; (i) the defendant is fifty eight years of age and has a number of health issues; (j) the defendant's financial circumstances are poor and his future employment prospects are poor; (k) any financial penalty imposed on the defendant will be extremely onerous; (l) the defendant is otherwise of good character and unlikely to offend again; (m) the defendant quickly entered a guilty plea upon obtaining legal advice; (n) the defendant cooperated which council; and (o) the defendant is willing to pay the reasonable legal expenses of the prosecution. 53 I generally accept the defendant's submissions on mitigation subject to a qualification concerning the proposition that he stood to gain little or nothing by his actions. I think that the defendant stood to gain income from the development if it were to proceed and that income was jeopardised if the development consent lapsed. 54 As regards the defendant's financial circumstances, I note his unchallenged evidence, which I have accepted, at [35] that he has very limited financial resources; he is mainly dependent on his wife for living expenses; he works from time to time on a casual basis on building consulting work; he has applied for financial assistance from Centrelink and is waiting for his application to be processed; and he has no realistic prospects of paying any substantial penalty from his own resources and would need to rely on his wife and son to assist him.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (60 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (4)

Cited By (2)