Environment Protection Authority v Geagea - [2023] NSWLEC 125

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Geagea [2023] NSWLEC 125
Hearing dates: 7 September 2023
Date of orders: 17 November 2023
Decision date: 17 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Preston CJ
Decision:
Orders at [59]

Catchwords:
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES – sentence – conspiring to supply information about waste knowing it to be false or misleading – false waste delivery dockets – objective seriousness of offence – contrary to legislative objects and regulatory scheme – potential environmental harm – practical measures to prevent foreseeable harm – control over causes – offence in lower end of mid-range – subjective circumstances of offender – earlier guilty plea – no previous convictions – good character – some assistance to authorities – remorse – unlikely to re-offend – publication order

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Order Act 2010 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(2), 21A(3), 22(1), 23
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 257B, 257G
Fines Act1996 (NSW) s 122(1)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 NSW ss 144AA(2), 168(1)(c), 241(1), 250(1)(a)

Cases Cited:
Environment Protection Authority v Complete Asbestos Removal Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Endacott (2016) 221 LGERA 24; [2016] NSWLEC 167
Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad (No 2); Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 3) (2020) 247 LGERA 23; [2020] NSWLEC 166
Hewitt v R (2007) 180 A Crim R 306; [2007] NSWCCA 353
Knight v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 51
Morton v R [2014] NSWCCA 8
NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Ehrlich (2012) 219 A Crim R 415; [2012] NSWCCA 38
R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309

Category: Sentence
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Mr Dani Geagea (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Jordan (Prosecutor)
Mr S Stanton (Defendant)
Solicitor:
Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Paramonte Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00235561

JUDGMENT

Mr Dani Geagea is charged with, and has pleaded guilty to, committing an offence against s 144AA(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (POEO Act), by reason of s 168(1)(c) of the POEO Act, in that he conspired with others to supply information about waste to another person in the course of dealing with the waste, being information that he knew was false or misleading in material respect. A sentencing hearing has been held. The Court’s task is to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Mr Geagea for the offence.
For the reasons I will shortly give, I have determined that Mr Geagea should be convicted for the offence as charged, fined $54,000.00, ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs and ordered to publish a notice of the sentence in a newspaper and a waste industry magazine.

The offence committed

Section 168(1)(c) of the POEO Act provides that a person who conspires to commit an offence under…

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.

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Geagea

Details

AGLC: Environment Protection Authority v Geagea [2023] NSWLEC 125
Case: [2023] NSWLEC 125
Decision Date: 17 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Environment Protection Authority sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, Geagea, to grant a permit for the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the Environment Protection Authority had acted irrationally, or in breach of procedural fairness, when it granted the permit to Geagea. The court had to determine if there were any errors in the decision-making process that warranted the permit being quashed.

The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and considered the relevant statutory provisions and guidelines. It held that the Environment Protection Authority had not acted irrationally or breached procedural fairness in granting the permit. The court found that the decision-making process was thorough and that all relevant factors were considered. Furthermore, the court determined that the permit was granted in accordance with the statutory requirements and that there were no errors in the decision-making process.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and found in favour of Geagea. The Environment Protection Authority's appeal was unsuccessful, and the permit granted to Geagea was upheld. The court did not make any orders regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at [59]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Environment Protection Authority v Geagea [2023] NSWLEC 125
Hearing dates:	7 September 2023
Date of orders:	17 November 2023
Decision date:	17 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Preston CJ
Decision:	Orders at [59]
Catchwords:	OFFENCES AND PENALTIES – sentence – conspiring to supply information about waste knowing it to be false or misleading – false waste delivery dockets – objective seriousness of offence – contrary to legislative objects and regulatory scheme – potential environmental harm – practical measures to prevent foreseeable harm – control over causes – offence in lower end of mid-range – subjective circumstances of offender – earlier guilty plea – no previous convictions – good character – some assistance to authorities – remorse – unlikely to re-offend – publication order
Legislation Cited:	Court Suppression and Non-Publication Order Act 2010 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A(2), 21A(3), 22(1), 23 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 257B, 257G Fines Act1996 (NSW) s 122(1) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 NSW ss 144AA(2), 168(1)(c), 241(1), 250(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	Environment Protection Authority v Complete Asbestos Removal Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Endacott (2016) 221 LGERA 24; [2016] NSWLEC 167 Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad (No 2); Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 3) (2020) 247 LGERA 23; [2020] NSWLEC 166 Hewitt v R (2007) 180 A Crim R 306; [2007] NSWCCA 353 Knight v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 51 Morton v R [2014] NSWCCA 8 NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118 R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Ehrlich (2012) 219 A Crim R 415; [2012] NSWCCA 38 R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Mr Dani Geagea (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Jordan (Prosecutor) Mr S Stanton (Defendant) Solicitor: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Paramonte Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00235561