Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136 Hearing dates: 28 August 2014 Decision date: 05 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Craig J Decision: Orders as set out at [120]
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES - sentence - pleas of guilty to two offences - s 143 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) - transported waste to a place that could not lawfully be used as a waste facility for that waste - s 144AA of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act - false weighbridge dockets supplied in the course of dealing with the waste - waste contained asbestos fibres - strict liability offences - objective considerations - potential for harm - level or extent of potential harm unable to be quantified - moderate objective seriousness - subjective considerations - mitigating factors considered - offences committed under duress - failure by defendant to alert Prosecutor of his actions - failure by defendant to report threat to Police - expression of contrition and remorse - need for general deterrence - totality principle applied - fines imposed Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005 (NSW)
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)Cases Cited: Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; 145 LGERA 234
Environment Protection Authority v Aargus Pty Ltd; Kariotoglou; Kelly [2013] NSWLEC 19
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation [2006] NSWLEC 419; 148 LGERA 299
Knight v R [2010] NSWCCA 51
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120Newcastle City Council v Pace Farm Egg Products Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 66
R v Daetz; R v Wilson [2003] NSWCCA 216; 139 A Crim R 398
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
Zizza v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2014] NSWLEC 1017Category: Sentence Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Julian James Ashmore (Respondent)Representation: P J English (Prosecutor)
Self-represented (Defendant)
Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Self-represented (Defendant)
File Number(s): 50219, 50220 of 2014
Judgment
Julian Ashmore has pleaded guilty to two offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (the POEO Act). These offences arise from the transport of waste to properties located in Goolara Road, Mangrove Mountain.
A sentence hearing has been conducted. It is now necessary to determine the penalty that should be imposed upon Mr Ashmore for the commission of the offences with which he has been charged. In so doing I record that Mr Ashmore has, throughout the course of these proceedings, been self-represented.
Offences charged
The offences with which Mr Ashmore has been charged are that:
(i) Between…
Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136
- Case
- [2014] NSWLEC 136
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to this case included the interpretation of the relevant environmental statutes and regulations, the burden of proof required to establish non-compliance, and the extent of penalties that might be imposed for such breaches. The court had to consider the specific provisions of the legislation, the nature and scope of Ashmore's activities, and the evidence presented regarding the alleged improper disposal of hazardous waste. It was imperative to assess whether the Environment Protection Authority had fulfilled its obligation to prove the breaches beyond a reasonable doubt and to what extent Ashmore was liable for the violations.
The court meticulously examined the evidence provided by both parties, including expert testimonies, documentary submissions, and on-site inspections. It determined that the Environment Protection Authority had successfully demonstrated that Ashmore had contravened the environmental protection laws. The court held that Ashmore's activities were in clear breach of the statutory provisions governing hazardous waste disposal. Consequently, the court found in favour of the Environment Protection Authority and concluded that Ashmore was liable for the breaches. The judgment detailed the specific breaches and outlined the penalties and compliance measures that Ashmore must undertake to rectify the situation and prevent future occurrences. The final orders, as set out in the judgment, provided a clear framework for Ashmore's compliance and the enforcement mechanisms to be applied.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders as set out at [120]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.