Cameron Sargent (Department of Environment and Science) v Anthony Michael Palmer and Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd

Case •

[2025] QMC 27

•

14 April 2025

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Cameron Sargent (Department of Environment and Science) v Anthony Michael Palmer and Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd [2025] QMC 27

PARTIES:

Cameron Sargent for Department of Environment, Science and Innovation

(Prosecution)

v

Anthony Michael Palmer (First Defendant)

And

Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd (CAN 138 092 869)

In liquidation

(Second Defendant)
FILENO/S: Mag-00142513/24(2); MAG-00142519/24(1)
DIVISION: Magistrates Court, Beenleigh
PROCEEDING: Complaint – Sentence Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh
DELIVEREDON: 14 April 2025
DELIVEREDAT: Beenleigh Magistrates Court
HEARINGDATE: 14 April 2025
MAGISTRATE: T E Mossop
ORDER: SENTENCE OF GLOBAL FINES; $30,000 FOR DEFENDANT PALMER AND $150,000 FOR THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT PALMER ALSO SENTENCED TO 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT WHOLLY SUSPENDED FOR AN OPERATIONAL PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. CONVICTIONS RECORDED; COSTS ORDER; ALL MONETARY AMOUNTS REFERRED TO SPER FOR REGISTRATION AND COLLECTION.
CATCHWORDS: Environmental Protection – asbestos waste handling and management – Sections 361(1), 426(1), 481(1), 493(2) Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) – asbestos waste
collection and disposal – false and misleading statements – sentencing principles of totality and deterrence – aggravated offending whilst on bail – ex parte sentence for corporate defendant in liquidation – aggravated offending by individual defendant performing same role in another company acquiring assets and conducting the same business as the liquidated corporate defendant
COUNSEL: M Nicholson, Counsel instructed by the Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (Prosecuting Authority)
DEFENCE:

M Hynes, Counsel instructed by Hannay Lawyers for the First Defendant Palmer

R Behlau, Solicitor of Behlau Murakami Grant, as friend of the court for the liquidator (Worrells) of Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd

Previous Relevant Offending and Recent Sentence

  1. This decision should be read after reading the earlier published sentencing decision of Cameron Sargent (Department of Environment and Science) v Anthony Michael Palmer and Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd [2024] QMC 26.

  2. These same Defendants pleaded guilty (July 2024) and were both sentenced (11 October 2024) 1 for the commission of a number of similar offences under Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EPA).

  3. Those offences had been committed over a period of just over 3 years and 4 months (between 29 May 2019 and 7 October 2022).

  4. The previous offences related to illegal operations in the handling and disposal of asbestos waste. Asbestos is a regulated waste under state legislation due to its ability to cause significant harm to health, including death.

Current Offending

  1. The current offences occurred after the previous offending period and can be best described as a continuation of offending.

  2. On 14 April 2025, pleas of guilty to an additional seven EPA charges were entered by the individual defendant Anthony Palmer (Mr Palmer).

  3. Prosecution of Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd (ADS), now in liquidation, proceeded ex parte pursuant to section 142A of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

  4. The additional current offences for sentence were committed between 6 October 2022 and 12 April 2024 and: -

1 See Cameron Sargent (Department of Environment and Science) v Anthony Michael Palmer and Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd [2024] QMC 26

(a)are not re-offending;

(b)are aggravated in circumstances when the offending period coincided with Mr Palmer also being on bail from March 2023. Further, that bail had a specific condition that he must not commit any further offences against the EPA;

(c)increase the overall total period of offending by an additional 18 months; and

(d)only ceased about 3 months prior to the July 2024 arraignment for the first offences charged.

Additional Offences committed by Mr Palmer

  1. Mr Palmer was culpable as: -

    (a)an executive officer who failed to ensure ADS did not breach the EPA;

    (b)a party to offences; 2 and

    (c)an individual for making false and misleading statements.

  2. Charge 1 [section 426(1) Carry Out Environmentally Relevant Activity Without Authority] is an offence of conduct without relevant approval in breach of section 426 of the EPA committed between 6 October 2022 and 12 April 2024.

  3. Charge 2 [section 493(2) Fail to Ensure Corporation Complies with Act] relates to the same time period as charge 1, and is an offence committed by Mr Palmer as an executive officer of ADS by failing to ensure the corporation complied with the EPA.

  4. Both of these charges relate to receiving and storing regulated waste without the relevant approval.

  5. Charges 3 and 4 are offences replicating Charges 1 and 2, respectively, but having been committed between 11 April 2023 and 18 August 2023. These also relate to receiving and storing regulated waste without the relevant approval.

  1. Charge 5 [section 361(1) Wilfully Contravene an Environmental Protection Order] is an offence of failing, as an executive officer, to ensure the corporation did not breach an Environmental Protection Order.

  1. Charges 6 and 7 [both under section 481(1) Make False or Misleading Statement] are offences committed on 29 August 2023 when Mr Palmer made false and misleading statements to Departmental Officers.

Additional Offences committed by ADS

  1. ADS faced an additional three offences.

  1. Charges 1 and 2 [both under section 426(1) Carry Out Environmentally Relevant Activity Without Authority] were for receiving and storing regulated waste without relevant approval.


2 Sections 7 & 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld) (party provisions)

  1. These offences were committed between 6 October 2022 and 12 April 2024, and

    between 11 April 2023 and 18 August 2023 respectively.

  2. These offences corelate to charges 1 through 4 against Mr Palmer.

  1. Charge 3 [section 361(1) Wilfully Contravene an Environmental Protection Order] is an offence of wilfully failing to comply with an Environmental Protection Order issued on 29 July 2021 by failing to cease disposing of regulated waste.

  1. Charge 3 corelates to charge 5 against Mr Palmer.

Details of the Offending

  1. Offending was detected from drone surveys which secured aerial imagery and allowed for volumetric references and identification of changes on the relevant site. Site visits were also conducted, with additional photographic evidence of offending obtained.

  2. Overall, an additional 156.27 metres of material had been accumulated and spread on the site, being waste materials including roof tiles and asphalt. Samples of waste taken included the presence of asbestos.

  3. The overall period of additional offending is some 18 months.

  4. The majority of the offending occurred between early October 2022 and late August 2023, a period of some 10 months (which equates to a bit less than a third of the total time period of the prior offending originally sentenced in July 2024).

  5. Additionally, false statements were made by Mr Palmer to Department Officers. These were: -

    (a)that the material used to construct new roads and pads had been obtained from suppliers, for which receipts were provided. [Detected because other evidence revealed this to be impossible. The only logical conclusion was that the material used contained regulated waste and was not sourced from approved recyclers] (Charge 6); and

    (b)skip bins containing regulated waste had been lawfully disposed of, with records provided. [This proved to be impossible. No records were ever provided that showed the destination or lawful disposal of this waste] (Charge 7).

  6. The overall impact of this further offending is that the site in question now contains more waste, with an additional impact of adversely affecting the adjacent property.

  7. Even if clean fill was spread over the site, it covered areas contaminated with asbestos and therefore becomes part of the contaminated waste requiring removal.

Sentencing Considerations, including Totality

  1. The previous sentences imposed for the earlier offending, on a late plea of guilty on the day of trial, married those sought by the Prosecution at that time. A $400,000 fine against ADS, a $100,000 fine for Mr Palmer, a Monetary Benefit Order of $74,544 and a Rehabilitation of Site Order. Mr Palmer was also sentenced to a term of 9

months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of 3 years. Convictions were recorded.

  1. The Prosecutor at this second sentence hearing did not seek a further Rehabilitation Order. This was because the existing order would also by its requirements rectify damage caused from the current offending.

  2. The real issue to now determine, for the additional offences requiring sentence, is a penalty that considers the totality of the offending with the first in time sentence but also reflects the further aggravating conduct of the offenders.

  3. When Mr Palmer made false statements and continued to offend after March 2023, this was specifically aggravated offending because he was on bail at that time for the earlier offences. Whilst not charged with any breaches of bail, his conduct contravened a specific condition of bail that he must not commit any further offences under the EPA.

  4. The Prosecution raised concerns about the actions of Mr Palmer around the cessation of ADS operating and the commencement of Gold Coast Demolition Group Pty Ltd, with Mr Palmer as sole director. Those concerns surrounded the timing of events and the purchase of assets and equipment from ADS.

  5. The conduct of Mr Palmer placing ADS into liquidation whilst operating Gold Coast Demolitions, a company that has acquired ADS assets and taken over ADS business, is relied on by the Prosecution as an adverse factor in considering Mr Palmer’s character and enhances the need for a specifically deterrent penalty on sentence. The Court has previously imposed such a principle.3

  6. Mr Palmer’s legal representation did not accept the submission that he deliberately put ADS into liquidation to avoid payment of penalty.

  7. Mr Palmer’s association with another company acquiring the liquidated company’s assets and conducting the same business operations as the liquidated company, on the balance of probabilities with reasonable inferences, is certainly an aggravating factor. This is truly relevant when considering personal deterrence.

  8. The Prosecution sought an additional suspended sentence of 6 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 years with a fine of between $40,000 and $50,000 (being 40-50% of the first in time fine imposed).

  9. Counsel for the Mr Palmer did not resist the suspended imprisonment sentence submission. The defence submission was for the imposition of an additional fine of

    $20,000.

  10. The totality principle requires consideration of aggregate offending to impose a sentence that reflects the total criminality.4

  11. The maximum penalty for an individual committing an offence of making a false or misleading statement is a fine of $120,000. For pollution of land, it is $250,000.


3 Department of Environment and Science v Tyre Transitions [2023] QDC 094 at [49] – [54].

4 Environmental Protection Order v Ghossayn (2023) NSWLEC 127 at [128] – [138]; Mill v. The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 at 62-63;

Pearce v. The Queen (1998) 194 CLR at [49]; R v Beattie; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2014) A Crim R 177 at [18] – [19].

  1. Sentences imposed in the matter of EPA v. Afram (2022) NSWLEC 38 were relied on as comparative by the Prosecution, but with the submission that Mr Palmer’s conduct was more serious given the period of his offending conduct, the fraudulent statements he made, the number of offences committed and the maximum penalties that apply.

  2. As for ADS, the corporate defendant in liquidation, the Prosecutor relied upon the law that general deterrence is important and insolvency should not be a barrier to financial penalties.5 The penalty set within discrete industry sectors signifies the magnitude of what might be imposed on others engaging in similar conduct.6 It may also be that a related company may be able to pay the fine, or, at the completion of liquidation, there may be funds available.

  3. In the context of the defendants’ overall offending and previous conduct and history, convictions being recorded was inevitable.

  4. The Court must sentence Mr Palmer and ADS after considering:-

    (i)the facts of the offending;

    (ii)prior offending history;

    (iii)totality principles;

    (iv)the aggravating feature of committing some offending whilst on bail;

    (v)the aggravating feature of committing some offending contrary to a specific bail condition prohibiting the commission of EPA offences;

    (vi)general deterrence;

    (vii)personal deterrence;

    (viii)community protection;

    (ix)harm caused, including potential harm;

    (x)imprisonment being a sentence of last resort;

    (xi)steps taken to comply with the previous sentence Rehabilitation Order; and

    (xii)submissions made by both Prosecution and Defence (mostly aligned), with case law comparatives considered.

  5. Sentencing considerations and observations of the law specifically referred to in the earlier sentence imposed remain relevant for the purposes of this sentence. 7

Sentences Imposed For Mr Palmer

  1. For charge 5 (failing, as an executive officer, to ensure the corporation did not breach and Environmental Protection Order), and charges 6 and 7 (false and misleading statements), the sentence for each charge is one of 6 months imprisonment, concurrent, but wholly suspended for an operational period of 3 years. Convictions are recorded.

  1. For charge 1 (receiving and storing regulated waste without relevant approval between 6 October 2022 and 12 April 2024) and charge 3 (wilfully failing to


5 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2007] FCAFC 146 at [21]

6 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v EDirect Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] FCA 976; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CAN 135 183 372 (in liquidation) [2012] FCA 749; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 254.

7 Cameron Sargent (Department of Environment and Science) v Anthony Michael Palmer and Asbestos Demolition Specialists Pty Ltd

[2024] QMC 26

comply with an Environmental Protection Order), Mr Palmer is convicted and not further punished, with convictions recorded.

  1. For charge 2 (receiving and storing regulated waste without relevant approval between 11 April 2023 and 18 August 2023), charge 4 (conduct without relevant approval in breach of section 426 of the EPA), and also for charges 5, 6 and 7 (in addition to imprisonment received), one global penalty of a $30,000 fine is imposed. Convictions are recorded.

  2. Costs in the sum of $1,530.90 are also ordered as payable to the Department of Environment Science and Innovation.

  3. All monetary amounts ordered are referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) for registration and collection.

For ADS

  1. For charges 1 and 2 (carrying out environmentally relevant activity without authority by receiving and storing regulated waste) and charge 3 (wilfully contravening an Environmental Protection Order by failing to cease disposing of regulated waste), a global fine of $150,000 is imposed, with convictions recorded.

  2. Costs in the sum of $1,530.90 are also ordered as payable to the Department of Environment Science and Innovation.

  3. All monetary amounts ordered are referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER) for registration and collection.

Cases Citing This Decision

0