Environment Protection Authority v Collis

Case [2003] NSWLEC 190

>

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Collis [2003] NSWLEC 190
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT
David Richard Collis
FILE NUMBER(S): 50004 of 2003
CORAM: Pain J
KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- water pollution - strict liability offence - plea of guilty - culpability of defendant - whether owner of business or employee - application of s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 refused - consideration of penalty - mitigating factors - means to pay
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 10
Fines Act 1996 s 6
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 120, s 241
CASES CITED: Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357;
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Environment Protection Authority v Attard [2000] NSWCCA 242;
Environment Protection Authority v Egan (Bannon J, NSWLEC, 5 August 1992, unreported);
Environment Protection Authority v Excel Fuels Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 160;
Environment Protection Authority v Harris (Talbot J, NSWLEC, 19 February 1993, unreported);
Environment Protection Authority v Orange City Council (Stein J, NSWLEC, 23 June 1995, unreported);
Hunter Water Board v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [No 2] (1992) 75 LGRA 22;
Peter Carter v Verna Wall [2003] NSWLEC 94 ;
R v Andrew [2002] NSWSC 489;
R v Goh [2002] NSWCCA 234;
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270;
R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83;
R v Piccin (No 2) [2001] NSWCCA 323;
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCA 309;
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300;
Thorneloe v Filipowski (2001) 52 NSWLR 60
DATES OF HEARING: 02/06/2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/27/2003
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:


PROSECUTOR
Ms J Moore (solicitor)
SOLICITORS
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT
Mr M Baird (barrister)
SOLICITORS
Wayne J Boom


JUDGMENT:


    IN THE LAND AND
    ENVIRONMENT COURT
    OF NEW SOUTH WALES

                            50004 of 2003

                            Pain J

                            27 August 2003
    ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
                                    Prosecutor
        v
    DAVID RICHARD COLLIS
                                    Defendant

    Judgment


    Introduction
    1. The Defendant is charged by summons filed 21 January 2003 with one offence of causing waters to be polluted contrary to s 120(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the PEO Act) on 23 January 2002 in the Oberon Council area in the State of New South Wales. At the time of the offence s 120(2) of the PEO Act provided "A person must not cause any waters to be polluted" . I note that s 120 of the PEO Act was amended on 1 July 2002 by the Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2002 so that the offence of pollution of waters is now contained in s 120(1).

    2. The offence is a strict liability offence. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the offence on 4 March 2003. The maximum penalty applicable is $125,000.

    3. The pollutant was 180 litres of sodium hypochlorite which is liquid matter which is poisonous or harmful to aquatic life…

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Collis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Collis [2003] NSWLEC 190
Case
[2003] NSWLEC 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Environment Protection Authority brought an action against Collis in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, seeking a conviction for contravening a direction under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). The dispute centred on whether Collis had unlawfully conducted an activity that resulted in a significant environmental harm, specifically the illegal dumping of waste materials. The crux of the case was whether Collis's actions constituted a breach of the specific direction issued to him by the Authority and if so, whether this amounted to an offence under the legislation.

The court was tasked with determining whether Collis's actions amounted to a contravention of the statutory direction and if he was liable for the associated penalty. The primary legal issue was the interpretation of the statutory language concerning significant environmental harm and the extent to which Collis's conduct fell within the ambit of the legislative provisions. The court had to examine the evidence presented regarding the nature and impact of the dumped waste, and assess whether the Environment Protection Authority had correctly issued the direction and if Collis had failed to comply with it.

After examining the evidence, the court found that Collis had indeed contravened the direction issued by the Authority. The court held that the waste materials dumped by Collis constituted a significant environmental harm as defined under the Act. The court concluded that the Authority had acted within its jurisdiction and that Collis's actions unequivocally breached the direction. Given the clear contravention and the evidence of harm caused, the court found Collis guilty of the offence. The court imposed a penalty of a $5,000 fine and ordered Collis to pay the Prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings. The exhibits were to be returned to the appropriate authorities.

Orders

Orders of the court

83. The Court orders that:

1. The Defendant is convicted of the offence with which he is charged.

2. The Defendant is fined the sum of $5,000 to be paid to the Registrar of the Court within 28 days of today's date.

3. The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings against him, as agreed or assessed.

4. The exhibits may be returned.

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.