Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read
Reported Decision: (2008) 163 LGERA 71

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Limited [2008] NSWLEC 280
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT
Baiada Poultry Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER(S): 50029 of 2008
CORAM: Preston CJ
KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- sentence - pollution of waters - order to fund environmental service project and publication order instead of fine - order to pay prosecutor's investigation costs and legal costs
LEGISLATION CITED: Clean Air Act 1961 s 15A
Clean Waters Act 1970 s 16(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A, s 21A
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Pt 8.3, s 120, s 123, s 241, s 248, s 250
CASES CITED: Axer Pty Limited v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51
Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Limited, unreported, Land and Environment Court, LEC No 50034 and 50035 of 1998, Lloyd J, 2 September 1998
Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Limited [2000] NSWLEC 249
Environment Protection Authority v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 732
Environment Protection Authority v Snowy Hydro Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 264
R v Carroll [2008] NSWCCA 218
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Tamworth City Council v Baiada Poultry Pty Limited, unreported, Land and Environment Court, LEC No 50055 of 1999, Talbot J, 4 February 2000
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
DATES OF HEARING: 25 September 2008
 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 
26 September 2008
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR
Ms K Robinson (solicitor)
SOLICITORS
Department of Environment and Climate Change

DEFENDANT
Mr T Howard (barrister)
SOLICITORS
Henry Davis York

JUDGMENT:

        THE LAND AND
        ENVIRONMENT COURT
        OF NEW SOUTH WALES

        PRESTON CJ

        26 SEPTEMBER 2008

        50029 OF 2008

        ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY V BAIADA POULTRY PTY LIMITED

        JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Baiada Poultry Pty Limited has pleaded guilty to having committed an offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, of polluting waters. The Court’s task is to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence.

The events of the offence

2 The offence involved about 1,000,000 litres of effluent from Baiada’s poultry rendering plant at 1154 Oxley Highway, Tamworth, escaping from a defective weld in an underground pipeline that conveys effluent from the plant to Tamworth Regional Council’s sewer line. The effluent descended into an unnamed watercourse in a paddock owned by Baiada. The effluent extended down the watercourse for approximately 1.1 kilometres. The watercourse was dry at the time due to the drought conditions prevailing in the Tamworth area.

3 The leak of the effluent pipe was first discovered on 6 April 2007 by Mr Wiegold, a farmer who agisted his cattle on land in the area. He observed effluent in the watercourse on Baiada’s premises and on the adjoining council land. He traced the source of the effluent to the ground near a standing pipe on Baiada’s premises. He observed the effluent to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] NSWLEC 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd arose before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd, was convicted of contravening section 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, which prohibits the pollution of waters. The specific charge involved the pollution of an unnamed watercourse in Tamworth, New South Wales. The Environment Protection Authority brought this action against the defendant following an investigation into the alleged environmental breach.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had indeed polluted the watercourse, and if so, what penalties should be imposed under the Act. The court was also required to determine the appropriate quantum of fines and other penalties to be levied against the defendant. This included assessing the financial impact on the defendant and ensuring that the penalties served a deterrent purpose and provided some form of restitution to the affected environment.

The court found that the defendant had indeed polluted the watercourse, resulting in the conviction. In determining the penalties, the court took into account the severity of the offence, the defendant’s history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court ordered the defendant to pay a significant fine of $120,000 to fund a conservation project, ordered the payment of investigation and legal costs, and mandated the publication of a notice in major newspapers. Additionally, the court required the defendant to include a specific passage in all future references to its funding of the conservation project, ensuring transparency and accountability.

The court's decision reflects a balanced approach, aiming to penalise the defendant appropriately while also promoting environmental restoration and public awareness of the consequences of such offences. The orders issued underscore the court’s commitment to environmental protection and compliance with regulatory standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is convicted of the offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act1997as charged.

2. The defendant, pursuant to s 250(1)(e) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, is to pay to the Tamworth Regional Council, within 28 days of this order, the amount of $120,000 to fund the North Bolton’s Creek - Extension of the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Project.

3. The defendant, pursuant to s 248(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, is to pay the prosecutor’s costs and expenses of investigation of the offence, in the sum of $4,872.

4. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s legal costs in the sum of $30,000.

5. The defendant, within 28 days of this order, is to place a notice in the first 12 pages of the early general news section of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Northern Daily Leader and the Financial Review at a minimum size of 8 centimetres by 12 centimetres in the form of annexure ‘A’ (pursuant to s 250(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997).

6. All future references by the defendant to its funding of North Bolton’s Creek - Extension of the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Project shall be accompanied by the following passage (pursuant to s 250(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997):

“Baiada’s funding of the North Bolton’s Creek - Extension of the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Project is part of a penalty imposed on Baiada by the Land and Environment Court after it was convicted of polluting waters, being an unnamed watercourse at Tamworth, NSW, an offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.”

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.