Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Elmustapha [2023] NSWLEC 143 Hearing dates: 5 December 2023 Date of orders: 14 December 2023 Decision date: 14 December 2023 Jurisdiction: Class 5 Before: Pepper J Decision: See orders at [120].
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: pleas of guilty to six offences concerning the supply of false or misleading information about waste – applicable sentencing principles – whether offences committed intentionally – environmental harm caused by the commission of the offences – whether offences were committed for financial gain – whether maximum discount to be awarded for early pleas of guilty – publication order made – fines imposed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A, 23
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 257B, 257G
Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste Disposal) Act 2013
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s 4.55(2)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, ss 3, 88, 144, 144AA, 169A, 193, 212A, 241, 250(1)(a)
Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment Act 2005
Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Asbestos Waste) Act 2018
Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014, cl 22
Cases Cited: Axer Pty Ltd v Environmental Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234
CabonneShire Council v Environment Protection Authority [2001] NSWCCA 280; (2001) 115 LGERA 304
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Brummell [2019] NSWLEC 114
Elias v The Queen [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483
Environment Protection Authority v Aargus Pty Ltd; Kariotoglou; Kelly [2013] NSWLEC 19
Environment Protection Authority v Abbas (also known as Osama Abbas) [2021] NSWLEC 57
Environment Protection Authority v ACE Demolition & Excavation Pty (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 3
Environment Protection Authority v Afram [2022] NSWLEC 38
Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136
Environment Protection Authority v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246
Environment Protection Authority v Laison [2018] NSWLEC 76
Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 29
Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd;Roche [2013] NSWLEC 191
Environment Protection Authority vRands [2019] NSWLEC 23
Environment Protection Authority v Ravensworth Operations Pty Limited [2012] NSWLEC 222
Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation [2006] NSWLEC 419; (2006) 148 LGERA 299
Environmental Protection Authority v Dirt Doctors Geotechnical Testing Services Pty Limited (Local Court no. 2021/249896)
Gittany Constructions Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 242; (2006) 145 LGERA…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Elmustapha 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWLEC 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Elmustapha's actions constituted breaches of the relevant environmental protection laws and, if so, what remedies or penalties should be imposed. The court had to examine the statutory provisions governing waste management and disposal, the permits required for such operations, and the evidence of environmental harm caused by Elmustapha's activities.
In its reasoning, the court meticulously reviewed the statutory framework and regulatory requirements for waste disposal operations. It found that Elmustapha had indeed operated without the necessary permits and had engaged in practices that contravened environmental protection laws. The court also considered the severity and impact of the environmental harm caused, finding that it was significant and warranted strict enforcement of the regulations. The court concluded that Elmustapha's actions constituted serious breaches of the law and ordered appropriate penalties and remedial actions to be taken.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders 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.