Environment Protection Authority v Burrangong Meat Processors Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWLEC 102

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Burrangong Meat Processors Pty Ltd [2003] NSWLEC 102 revised - 25/06/2003

PARTIES:
PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT
Burrangong Meat Processors Pty Ltd
(ACN 002 884 255)

FILE NUMBER(S): 50095-6 of 2002; 50098-9 of 2002 of

CORAM: Pain J

KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- plea of guilty - breach of licence condition - three offensive odour offences - consideration of penalty - mitigating circumstances - principle of totality

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 11
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 64(1), s 129(1), s 241

CASES CITED: Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Environment Protection Authority v Illawarra Coke Company Pty Ltd (2002) 118 LGERA 451;
Environment Protection Authority v Shoalhaven Starches Pty Ltd (Bignold J, NSWLEC, 14 October 1997, unreported);
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381;
R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DATES OF HEARING: 21/03/2002, 2/04/2003, 4/04/2003 (written submissions), 7/04/2003 (written submissions)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
04/10/2003

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR
Mr G Plath (solicitor)
SOLICITORS
Environment Protection Authority
RESPONDENT
Mr W Arthur (barrister)
SOLICITORS
Ian Cunliffe

JUDGMENT:

50095 of 2002, 50096 of 2002, 50098 of 2002 and 50099 of 2002

Pain J

10 April 2003

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

Prosecutor

BURRANGONG MEAT PROCESSORS PTY LTD

Defendant

Judgment

Introduction
1. In matter 50095 of 2002 the Defendant is charged with a breach of licence conditions pursuant to s 64(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the PEO Act), that between 14 and 15 November 2001 inclusive the Defendant contravened one of the conditions of its environmental protection licence in that it failed to operate its effluent treatment system in a proper and efficient manner by overloading that system with effluent.

being the occupier of premises at which a scheduled activity was carried on under the authority conferred by a licence, it did cause the emission of an offensive odour from the premises to which the licence applies

on 11 October, 15 November and 22 November 2001 respectively. The Defendant has pleaded guilty to all the offences with which it is charged.

3. The maximum penalty for each of the four offences is $250,000.

The facts

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Burrangong Meat Processor... 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: [2003] NSWLEC 102
Decision Date: 04/10/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) prosecuted Burrangong Meat Processors Pty Ltd for breaches of its environmental protection licence and three instances of emitting offensive odours in Young, New South Wales. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges. The Land and Environment Court considered the harm caused, the foreseeability of the harm, and the defendant's culpability and control over the causes of the offences. The court found that the harm was actual but not long-lasting or toxic, and that the defendant could have taken practical measures to prevent the harm. The offences were foreseeable due to the defendant's knowledge of the increasing production and effluent volume. The court also noted the defendant's efforts to address the issue and its cooperation with the EPA. Considering the principle of totality and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, contrition, and the defendant's contribution to the local community, the court imposed fines totalling $58,875 and ordered the defendant to pay the EPA's costs of $21,500.

Orders