Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Environment Protection Authority v Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd [2000] NSWLEC 249

PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR:
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT:
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S):

50003 of 2000

CORAM:

Talbot J

KEY ISSUES:

Prosecution :- allowance for early plea of guilty and co-operation of defendant prior to laying of the charge - mitigating factors including misunderstanding of strict legal position

LEGISLATION CITED:

Clean Air Act 1961 s 10
Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 341

CASES CITED:

R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309

DATES OF HEARING:

16/10/2000

EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT DATE :

10/16/2000

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR:
Mr M M Kelly (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS:
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT:
Mr B J Preston SC

SOLICITORS:
Mallesons Stephen Jaques

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter No. 50003 of 2000
ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Talbot J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision Date: 16 October, 2000

Environment Protection Authority
Prosecutor

v
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


1. The defendant appears to answer the charge that from 15 February 1999 until 5 March 1999 at Tamworth it committed an offence against the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 in that it was the occupier of scheduled premises and was not the holder of a licence issued in respect of those premises contrary to s 10 of the Clean Air Act 1961 (“the Clean Air Act”).

2. The offence attracts a penalty in the sum of $125,000 and a further penalty at the rate of $60,000 a day which the prosecutor says applies for the 18 days between the dates referred to in the charge.

3. That would be a total maximum penalty, if the prosecutor was successful in persuading the Court to apply such a penalty, of $1,205,000. It is not suggested that this defendant is exposed to a penalty in that order. Nevertheless, the extent of the penalty to which the defendant is liable is an indication of the seriousness of the offence.

4. The premises are scheduled premises as rendering or fat extraction works in which animal, presumably in this case poultry, or other matter is processed or is capable of being processed by rendering or extraction or other means to produce alone or in the aggregate, in excess of 50 tonnes per annum of tallow or fat in accordance with s 10 and cl 1 of the schedule to the Clean Air Act 1961.

5. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning granted development consent for the poultry processing complex at Tamworth on 9 February 1998. The consent was modified in an immaterial respect for present purposes on 9 February 1999.

6. On or about 22 July 1998 the defendant made application to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for approval under the Pollution Control Act 1970 to construct the plant at a place near Tamworth, known as Oakburn.

7. On 15 December 1998 the EPA issued an approval to the defendant. The approval…