The Court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and sentence for failure to comply with a development control order under s 9.37(1) of the EPA Act. The offence of non-compliance crystallised when the extended compliance date passed and the retaining wall remained, meaning the limitation period under s 9.57(5) ran from that date rather than from when Council first observed the unauthorised structure years earlier. The Court confirmed the offence fell at the low end of objective seriousness but declined to apply s 10 of the CSP Act given the appellant's lack of remorse, absence of extenuating circumstances, and the non-trivial nature of the offence, upholding the $1,600 fine and $1,400 professional costs order.
The full text is available to signed-in members.