Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020
In Southland Regional Council v Erskine,[1] a recent District Court sentencing under the RMA,[2] the Court considered whether it would be a double penalty to impose a fine on the sole director of a company as well as the company itself.
The defendant was the sole director of a company which had previously been convicted and fined $32,000 on the same charge that he faced. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charge and applied for discharge under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the basis that the charge against him was unwarranted as the purpose of sentencing, being deterrence and denunciation, had already been met with the guilty plea and conviction of the company. [3]
The District Court rejected the discharge application on the basis that the strict liability scheme in s340(3) of the RMA specifically contemplated that directors and companies could be held liable for the same offence. Further, it would be “unsatisfactory” for a director to escape liability for an action for which they were culpable, and for culpability to be ascribed solely to the company. The District Court expressed concern that by dismissing the charge, it could be endorsing a process by which directors use their company’s conviction to avoid criminal liability.[4]
Following dismissal of his s147 application, the defendant immediately pleaded guilty to the charges. At sentencing, he maintained that any fine imposed should reflect the fact that he would also be paying the company’s fine, and there should be no element of double penalty. On that basis, the defendant sought a conviction and discharge.
The District Court accepted that the double penalty principle broadly supported the defendant’s submission, but again expressed concern about the risk of directors misusing court processes to avoid personal financial liability.[5] The Court held it was appropriate to impose a fine of $2,000 against the defendant to reflect the fact that he maintained a not guilty plea right up until his s147 application was declined.
Conclusion
The double penalty principle does not prevent a court convicting and fining both a company and its sole director. The RMA prosecution scheme intends to achieve that very outcome.[6] However, the Court commented that if a similar situation arises again, where a company has pleaded guilty and its director not guilty, it may be appropriate for the sentencing Judge to delay sentencing the company until the outcome of the director's charges is known. That will ensure that both defendants have appropriate sentences passed on them if the director is also found guilty.[7]
For questions relating to this article, please contact one of our experts below.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018

Tendering pitfalls: the importance of "no process contract" clauses
Friday 15 September, 2017
