Withdrawing Charges under the RMA

Withdrawing Charges under the RMA
Thursday 3 October, 2019
Background
The District Court recently refused to grant Canterbury Regional Council (“Regional Council”) leave to withdraw charges under the RMA against a defendant. In the case in question, the Regional Council alleged that Bathurst Coal had discharged sediment-laden water onto land which resulted in contaminants entering the Bush Gully Stream. Bathurst participated in the Council’s “Alternative Environmental Justice Scheme” (“the Scheme”) and agreed to pay $50,000 towards fencing a section of the stream and contribute staff labour. The work was not restorative. The Regional Council then sought the Court’s leave to withdraw the charges.
Process for withdrawing charges
The Court wasn’t satisfied that the prosecutor had followed proper process in deciding to withdraw charges based on the presumption that prosecution is in the public interest when there has been an infringement of the criminal law. Relevantly, the Solicitor-General’s Guidelines provide a list of factors to consider when deciding whether to continue with prosecution. The Regional Council did not address the Guidelines in its application seeking leave to withdraw the charges; instead it had focused on its assessment that the Scheme had achieved a deterrent outcome.
The Regional Council had suggested that the Scheme was a diversion programme, which would require the Court to dismiss the charges if the defendant completed it. However, the Court determined that it wasn’t, because the prosecution was not brought by the Crown but by a local authority. The Council therefore could only withdraw the charges if the Court granted it leave to do so.
Outcome
The Court concluded that the decision to withdraw the charges was not a principled one. The Court considered that the Council had placed too much weight on the likely sentencing outcome, without considering other relevant factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, the harm caused, and the high threshold required for a discharge without conviction. The Court warned that defendants should not be able to avoid prosecution simply because they pay compensation, even if the compensation is greater than the likely fine that the Court would impose. The Court refused leave to withdraw the charges.
Implications for local government
Where a local authority carries out a prosecution for an offence, any decision on whether to commence and/or discontinue such actions must be made in a principled way which considers the Solicitor-General’s Guidelines. When deciding whether to commence/continue prosecutions or withdraw charges. Deciding to withdraw charges because a defendant as paid compensation or has carried out work to benefit the environment may necessitate seeking the leave of the Court to do so. Implementing a principled approach will also avoid any perception that defendants can potentially “buy their way out” of being prosecuted for an offence (albeit that this is highly unlikely to be a reason for withdrawing an action).
For assistance with questions relating to this article, please contact one of our local government partners, Bridget Parham, Marianne Mackintosh or Theresa Le Bas.
Related Articles

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

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

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 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

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
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

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

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

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

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

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

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