Environment Protection Authority v Geagea

Case •

[2023] NSWLEC 125

•

17 November 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  1. Section 168(1)(c) of the POEO Act provides that a person who conspires to commit an offence under another provision of the Act is guilty of an offence against that other provision and is liable, on conviction, to the same penalty applicable to an offence against that other provision. The other provision in this case is s 144AA(2) of the POEO Act. The offence against that provision is:

“(2) A person who supplies information about waste to another person in the course of dealing with the waste, being information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material respect, is guilty of an offence.”

  1. At the time Mr Geagea committed the offence in July 2019, the penalty applicable to the offence against s 144AA(2) was, in the case of an individual, $240,000 or imprisonment for 18 months, or both.

  2. The prosecutor, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), did not contend that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate for the offence committed by Mr Geagea.

The facts of the offence in brief

  1. The prosecutor and Mr Geagea agreed on a statement of facts (the Amended Agreed Statement of Facts). I will not recite the full statement, but I have taken the facts stated into account in determining the appropriate sentence. That statement of facts was supplemented by affidavit evidence of Mr Geagea. The following brief account of the events leading up to and involving the commission of the offence draws on the statement of facts and affidavit evidence.

  2. Mr Geagea is the sole director of a demolition, excavation, civil engineering and waste transport company called Masters Civil (Aust) Pty Ltd.

  3. Ghossayn Group Pty Ltd (Ghossayn Group) is a demolition, excavation, plant hire, civil engineering and waste removal company. Mr George Ghossayn was at the time of the offence, and still is, the sole director and secretary of the Ghossayn Group. Mr Ghossayn knew Mr Geagea socially and through their mutual lines of work. Mr Elie Badr was employed by the Ghossayn Group as an estimator. Mr Geagea had not known Mr Badr until the events of the commission of the offence.

  4. Ghossayn Group was contracted by Didomi Pty Ltd (Didomi) to carry out the excavation and remediation of a site at Dulwich Hill (the Dulwich Hill site). Before Ghossayn Group started excavation, asbestos-containing material was discovered in the soil surface at the Dulwich Hill site. As a result, the top 0.1 metres of the fill material to be excavated was determined to be asbestos waste and the remainder of the fill material to be excavated was determined to be general solid waste. Ghossayn Group was contracted to excavate and remove all of the fill material from the site.

  5. The discovery of asbestos waste meant that the removal of fill material containing asbestos waste from the Dulwich Hill site would be more expensive than clean fill material, as it needed to be disposed of at a waste facility licensed to receive asbestos waste. Ghossayn Group wished to avoid this additional expense of having to dispose of the asbestos waste at an appropriately licensed waste facility. Ghossayn Group therefore arranged with a Mr Cannuli for all of the waste material to be disposed of at a residential property at Luddenham NSW, which he was sub-leasing (the Luddenham property). The Luddenham property was not licensed to lawfully receive the waste material from the Dulwich Hill site.

  6. Finding the Luddenham property solved where to dispose of the waste material from the Dulwich Hill site. But it did not solve the contractual requirement of Ghossayn Group to provide to Didomi waste delivery dockets establishing that the waste material had been disposed of at an appropriately licensed waste facility. To solve this problem, Mr Ghossayn approached Mr Geagea, who he had known for a number of years.

  7. Mr Geagea recounts in his affidavit of 5 September 2023 that Mr Ghossayn asked him, in about June 2019:

“Dani, you recall you told me that someone you knew could give me dockets if I needed it for waste disposal. I need you to help me get that person [to] provide those dockets”.

  1. Mr Geagea said he replied: “I will talk to the guy and see if he will do it”.

  2. Mr Geagea said that the “guy” he referred to was Mr Ben Killick. Mr Killick used to work for Mr Geagea. Mr Killick had told Mr Geagea that he could get dockets made up for the disposal of waste containing asbestos. Mr Geagea knew that Mr Killick regularly drank at a hotel in Revesby. Mr Geagea met Mr Killick at that hotel around 16 July 2019 and asked him if could still get the false dockets that he had spoken about for the disposal of waste. Mr Killick indicated he could. He said he had a friend who could get these dockets.

  3. Afterwards, in the late afternoon of 16 July 2019, Mr Badr from the Ghossayn Group emailed to Mr Geagea a spreadsheet of the tonnage and classification of waste material transported to and deposited of at the Luddenham property on 15 and 16 July 2019. There were 49 loads of waste. This information was to be used to create the false waste delivery dockets. Mr Geagea printed this spreadsheet and gave it to Mr Killick at the hotel. Mr Killick asked Mr Geagea if he could attend Mr Geagea’s office to prepare the dockets. Mr Geagea agreed.

  4. The next day, 17 July 2019, Mr Killick and another man wearing a Suez shirt attended Mr Geagea’s office. Suez Recycling Pty Ltd (Suez) operates a licensed waste facility at Kemps Creek, which is authorised to receive both asbestos waste and general solid waste. There is no suggestion that the man wearing a Suez shirt was authorised by Suez or even worked for Suez. But he did know what Suez’s waste delivery dockets looked like and he was able to produce false waste delivery dockets to look like Suez’s waste delivery dockets.

  5. On 17 July 2019, Mr Killick and the man wearing the Suez shirt produced 49 false waste delivery dockets using the information in the spreadsheet provided by Mr Badr. When they finished, they emailed the false dockets to Mr Badr from the email address [email protected] (UFCC email address), alleged to be Mr Killick’s. The email was sent from Mr Geagea’s office. Soon afterwards, Mr Geagea received a phone call from Mr Badr who said that nine of the dockets had errors and needed to be redone and resent to him. That was done early in the morning of 18 July 2019, again using Mr Geagea’s office and the UFFCC email address. Later in the morning of 18 July 2019, Mr Badr again rang Mr Geagea saying that he wanted the waste classification in eight of the dockets that had been sent to him earlier in the morning to be corrected because of further errors. This was done and the corrected dockets were sent to Mr Badr using Mr Geagea’s office and the UFFCC email address. Later again on the same morning, Mr Badr rang Mr Geagea saying he was now satisfied with the revised dockets that had been sent to him, being 49 in total.

  6. Mr Killick had said to Mr Geagea that he wanted $300 for each false docket, payable in cash. Mr Geagea so informed Mr Badr. After the false dockets were sent to Mr Badr on 18 July 2019, an employee of Ghossayn Group delivered an envelope containing cash, which Mr Geagea assumed totalled $14,700.00 (being 49 dockets by $300 each). Mr Geagea did not, however, count the money. He gave the envelope containing the money to Mr Killick at the hotel within two days of receiving it. Mr Geagea said he did not take any money from the envelope and was not otherwise paid by Ghossayn Group for arranging for the false waste delivery dockets to be provided to Ghossayn Group.

  7. The false waste delivery dockets were used by Ghossayn Group to prepare an invoice to Didomi for the excavation and removal of fill material from the Dulwich Hill site. The invoice required Didomi to pay $233,429.24 to Ghossayn Group for the services provided, which related to the cost of excavation, transport and disposal of the material. Didomi did not pay the invoice, as it discovered that the waste delivery dockets were false and the material had not been delivered to Suez’s licensed waste facility.

  8. The waste material that had been disposed of unlawfully at the Luddenham property was later removed and disposed of at a waste facility licensed to receive the waste material. That occurred in 2021 to 2022.

The objective seriousness of the offence

  1. The objective seriousness of the offence committed by My Geagea is affected by:

  1. the nature of the offending;

  2. the maximum penalty for the offence;

  3. the harm or likely harm caused by the commission of the offence;

  4. the practical measures to prevent that harm;

  5. the foreseeability of harm; and

  6. the control over the causes of the offence.

  1. The objective seriousness of the offence committed by Mr Geagea is not proven to be affected by any financial gain received by Mr Geagea or by being part of a planned or organised criminal activity.

Nature of the offending

  1. Mr Geagea’s conduct in arranging for the provision of false waste delivery dockets offended against the legislative objectives expressed in the offence again s 144AA(2) of the POEO Act. Those objectives include ensuring the proper description not only of the waste itself but also of the handling, storage, treatment, dealing with and using the waste; transporting of the waste, and disposing of the waste: Environment Protection Authority v Complete Asbestos Removal Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Endacott (2016) 221 LGERA 24; [2016] NSWLEC 167 at [62]. The imposition of the offence for providing false or misleading information about waste is designed to strengthen the regulatory framework for the protection of the environment: at [63].

  2. The conduct of Mr Geagea in arranging the provision of false waste delivery dockets to Ghossayn Group facilitated the unlawful transportation and disposal of the waste material at the Luddenham property, a site not licensed to receive the waste. That conduct undermined the regulatory objectives and scheme for environment protection under the POEO Act.

Maximum penalty

  1. At the time of commission of the offence, the maximum penalty for the offence against s 144AA(2) for an individual was $240,000 or imprisonment for 18 months or both. That maximum penalty is an expression of the legislature’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence and provides a sentencing yardstick against which Mr Geagea’s commission of the offence can be compared.

Harm to environment

  1. Section 241(1)(a) of the POEO Act requires the Court to take into consideration the extent of harm caused or likely to be caused to the environment by the commission of the offence.

  2. Mr Geagea’s conduct in arranging for the provision of false waste delivery dockets, which constituted the commission of the offence, did not directly cause harm to the environment. The harm or likely harm to the environment was caused by the actual disposal of waste material at the Luddenham property. The disposal of the waste material physically compacted the soil, degrading its quality and agronomic amenity, and had the potential to cause a risk of harm to human health and other living organisms due to the presence of asbestos and benzo(a)pyrene. The waste material exceeded relevant criteria for human health and ecology.

  3. Nevertheless, Mr Geagea’s commission of the offence facilitated that disposal of waste material and the attendant harm or likely harm to the environment at the Luddenham property. Had Mr Geagea not arranged for the provision of the false waste delivery dockets, Ghossayn Group might have been impeded in its quest to dispose of the waste material removed from the Dulwich Hill site at the Luddenham property or any other site not licensed to receive the waste material. In this way, there was a potential for harm to be caused to the environment by the commission of the offence: Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad (No 2); Environment Protection Authority v Aussie Earthmovers Pty Ltd (No 3) (2020) 247 LGERA 23; [2020] NSWLEC 166 at [22]-[25].

Practical measures to prevent harm

  1. Section 241(1)(b) of the POEO Act provides that the Court is to take into consideration the practical measures that may be taken to prevent, control, abate or mitigate that harm to the environment.

  2. Here, the practical measure that needed to be taken was obvious: not to arrange the provision of false waste delivery dockets. This is the very act that constitutes the commission of the offence.

Foreseeability of harm

  1. Section 241(1)(c) of the POEO Act provides that the Court is to take into consideration the extent to which the person who committed the offence could reasonably have foreseen the harm caused or likely to be caused to the environment by the commission of the offence.

  2. Here, it was reasonably foreseeable to Mr Geagea that the provision of false waste delivery dockets would facilitate the unlawful transportation and disposal of waste material at a site not licensed to receive the waste material. That was the only purpose of the false waste delivery dockets. Whilst Mr Geagea might not have been aware of the receiving environment of the site at which the waste material might be unlawfully deposited, he could reasonably foresee that some degree of harm to the environment might be caused by reason of the site not being licensed to receive the waste material.

Control over causes of the offence

  1. Section 241(1)(d) of the POEO Act provides that the Court is to take into consideration the extent to which the person who committed the offence had control over the causes that gave rise to the offence.

  2. Here, Mr Geagea had complete control over the causes that gave rise to the commission of the offence. He arranged for the false waste delivery dockets to be created and thereby committed the offence.

No financial gain

  1. An aggravating factor which increases the objective seriousness of an offence, is if the offence was committed for financial gain: s 21A(2)(o) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (Sentencing Act).

  2. Here, the evidence does not establish that Mr Geagea committed the offence for financial gain. Mr Geagea agreed to Mr Ghossayn’s request to arrange for Ghossayn Group to obtain false waste delivery dockets but he did so not for any financial reward for himself. The person he arranged to create the false dockets, Mr Killick, charged and was paid by Ghossayn Group $300 per docket. But Mr Geagea did not receive any part of that payment or any separate payment for his assistance in arranging the false dockets.

  3. Ghossayn Group sought to benefit financially by disposing of the waste material it removed from the Dulwich Hill site otherwise than at a licensed waste facility, which would charge for disposal of the waste material at the facility. Procuring the false waste delivery dockets enabled that unlawful disposal of the waste material. But this was financial gain by Ghossayn Group, not by Mr Geagea.

No planned or organised criminal activity

  1. Another aggravating factor increasing the objective seriousness of the offence is if the offence was part of a planned or organised criminal activity: s 21A(2)(n) of the Sentencing Act. “Organised criminal activity” may involve the activities of several people that are planned or co-ordinated to carry out the crime, or an activity that is carried out by just one person if that person engages in planning or preparation: NCR Australia v Credit Connection [2005] NSWSC 1118 at [72]; Hewitt v R (2007) 180 A Crim R 306; [2007] NSWCCA 353 at [25]. This aggravating factor will not be established unless there is evidence that would permit making a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the degree of planning in the case exceeded the degree of planning which would ordinarily be expected in an offence of that kind: Knight v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 51 at [16].

  2. Here, the prosecutor has not established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Geagea’s conduct in arranging for the false waste delivery dockets was part of a planned or organised criminal activity. The offence with which Mr Geagea was charged involved a conspiracy to commit the offence against s 144AA(2) of the POEO Act of supplying false or misleading information about waste in the course of dealing with waste. The degree of planning by Mr Geagea in arranging Mr Killick to create the false waste delivery dockets for Ghossayn Group did not exceed the degree of planning that would ordinarily be expected of the offence of conspiring to commit an offence against s 144AA(2).

  3. Mr Geagea was the facilitator and go-between who arranged for Ghossayn Group to obtain the false waste delivery dockets it wanted in order to be able to dispose of waste material unlawfully. But the planning for the commission of the offence by Mr Geagea, after he was being asked by Mr Ghossayn to commit the offence, involved no more than contacting Mr Killick to ask him to create the false waste delivery dockets, putting Mr Killick in contact with a representative of Ghossayn Group (Mr Badr), and permitting Mr Killick and another man to use his office to create and send the false waste delivery dockets to Mr Badr. That simple degree of planning and conduct was no more than what would ordinarily be involved in the commission of an offence of that kind.

Conclusion on objective seriousness

  1. Having regard to the objective circumstances I have found established, I consider the objective seriousness of the offence committed by Geagea to be in the lower end of the mid-range of offending.

Subjective circumstances of the offender

  1. The objective seriousness of the offence committed by Mr Geagea is mitigated by six subjective circumstances of Mr Geagea: his guilty plea, his clean record, his good character, his assistance to authorities, his remorse for the offence, and the unlikelihood of him re-offending.

Guilty plea

  1. Mr Geagea is entitled to a lesser penalty than would otherwise be imposed for his plea of guilty to the offence: s 21A(3)(k) and s 22(1) of the Sentencing Act. A discount of up to 25% may be allowed for a guilty plea entered at the earliest possible opportunity: R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309 at [155], [160].

  2. Mr Geagea pleaded guilty to the offence eight months after (on 21 April 2023) the proceedings were commenced (on 10 August 2022). During this period, the prosecutor continued to obtain and serve further evidence in addition to what had it served on commencement of the proceedings.

  3. The prosecutor submitted this delay should reduce the discount usually afforded for the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty below the maximum of 25%. Mr Geagea submitted that it was not unreasonable for him to await the prosecution completing service of all of its evidence before entering a plea and, hence, the full discount for the utilitarian value of the plea should be allowed.

  4. I understand Mr Geagea’s submission that, in circumstances where the prosecutor continued to serve further evidence over the eight months period, Mr Geagea’s entry of a guilty plea after all of that evidence had been served was not unreasonable. But waiting for all of the prosecutor’s evidence to be served nevertheless meant that the plea of guilty was not entered at the earliest opportunity available. The reason for the delay in entering a plea of guilty is ordinarily irrelevant because, if a plea is not forthcoming, the utilitarian value of the plea is reduced: R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102 at [32(8)]; Morton v R [2014] NSWCCA 8 at [32], [33].

  5. Because of the delay in entering the guilty plea, the discount to be afforded for the utilitarian value of the plea should be reduced from the maximum of 25% to 20%.

No prior criminal record

  1. Mr Geagea was not shown to have a record of previous convictions, either for the offence committed by him or any other offence: s 21A(3)(e) of the Sentence Act.

Good character

  1. Mr Geagea was shown to be a person of good character: s 21A(3)(f) of the Sentencing Act. Two character references were tendered, one from Mr Khalil who was a former business partner from 1998 to 2012 in a demolition and excavation company and the other from Mr Chidiac who has known Mr Geagea socially for over 20 years, coming from the same village in northern Lebanon and being part of the same community in Australia. Both references spoke of Mr Geagea as an honest and a hard-working person, committed to his family, community and religion.

Assistance to authorities

  1. Mr Geagea has assisted the prosecutor in this case, by participating voluntarily in a record of interview and agreeing to a statement of facts.

  2. Mr Geagea has provided assistance to the prosecutor in its investigations of other potential offences committed by other persons: s 21A(3)(m) and s 23 of the Sentencing Act. The nature and content of the assistance provided by Mr Geagea is the subject of orders under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Order Act 2010 (NSW). But I have taken the confidential exhibit and confidential affidavit of Mr Geagea into account in finding that Mr Geagea has provided some, although limited, assistance to the authorities. I would assess that assistance as justifying a reduction of the penalty that would otherwise be imposed by 5%: see s 23(4) of the Sentencing Act and R v Ehrlich (2012) 219 A Crim R 415; [2012] NSWCCA 38 at [9], [10], [31]-[34].

Remorse for the offence

  1. Mr Geagea gave evidence expressing his remorse and contrition for committing the offence: s 21A(3)(i) of the Sentencing Act. Mr Geagea said he accepted responsibility for, but regretted, his actions of providing assistance to Mr Ghossayn to procure the false waste delivery dockets. Mr Geagea said he was “truly ashamed and sorry for what has occurred”.

Unlikelihood of reoffending

  1. Mr Geagea submitted that he is unlikely to reoffend, especially having regard to his plea of guilty and his remorse for committing the offence. He said, in effect, he has learnt his lesson. I accept that Mr Geagea is unlikely to commit the same offence again: s 21A(3)(g) of the Sentencing Act.

The appropriate sentence

  1. Synthesising the objective seriousness of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the offender, I find that the appropriate sentence for the offence committed by Mr Geagea is a fine in the amount of $72,000. This amount should be discounted by 20% for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty and 5% for the assistance to the authorities (a combined discount of 25%) to be $54,000.

  2. This sentence of a fine of $54,000 needs to be checked for parity with the sentence to be imposed on Mr Ghossayn. Mr Ghossayn, the person who asked Mr Geagea to arrange false waste delivery dockets, has been prosecuted for an offence against s 144AA(1) of the POEO Act. He will be sentenced at the same time as Mr Geagea. I have determined that the appropriate fine for the offence committed by Mr Ghossayn is $27,000. This is less than the fine I have determined for Mr Geagea ($54,000) as each was charged with different offences. Mr Geagea was charged with committing the offence against s 144AA(2), which had a maximum penalty at the time of $240,000 for an individual, while Mr Ghossayn was charged with committing an offence against s 144AA(1), which had a maximum penalty the time of $120,000 for an individual. The difference in the amounts of the fines imposed on Mr Geagea and Mr Ghossayn reflects these different maximum penalties. I find their relative culpabilities in committing the offences with which they were charged to be the same. The parity principle, therefore, does not justify any adjustment of the fine for Mr Geagea’s commission of the offence against s 144AA(2).

  3. The prosecutor sought, and Mr Geagea did not contest, an additional order under s 250(1)(a) of the POEO Act that Mr Geagea publicise the sentence for the offence. The prosecutor provided a form of the publication order, with which Mr Geagea did not disagree. I consider it is appropriate to make a publication order in the form provided.

  4. The prosecutor sought an order for its professional costs as agreed or assessed, under s 257B of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Mr Geagea did not contest that order.

  5. The prosecutor sought a moiety of one-half of the fine imposed under s 122(1) of the Fines Act1996 (NSW). That order was also not opposed by My Geagea. I agree to making the order.

  6. The Court orders:

  1. Mr Dani Geagea is convicted of the offence against s 144AA(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, as charged.

  2. Mr Geagea is fined $54,000.

  3. One-half of the fine imposed by order 2 is to be paid to the prosecutor.

  4. Mr Geagea is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings in an amount as may be determined under s 257G of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

  5. Mr Geagea, at his expense is to:

  1. within 28 days of the date of this order, cause a notice at a minimum size of 15cm by 15cm to be published within the first 10 pages of The Daily Telegraph (or as close to the first 10 pages as can be accommodated having regard to the editorial requirements of the newspaper) with the text as set out in Annexure A to these orders; and

  2. within 56 days of the date of this order, cause a notice at a minimum size of a quarter page to be published within the first 10 pages of the Inside Waste magazine (or as close to the first 10 pages as can be accommodated having regard to the editorial requirements of the newspaper) with the text as set out in Annexure A to these orders.

  1. Within 28 days of the date of publication of each notice referred to in order 5, Mr Geagea is to provide to the prosecutor a complete copy of the page or pages of the newspaper and magazine in which the notice appears.

**********

Annexure A

Dani Geagea convicted of conspiring to supply information about waste knowing that the information was false or misleading

On 17 November 2023, Mr Dani Geagea, sole director of Masters Civil (Aust) Pty Ltd, was convicted by the Land and Environment Court of NSW of one offence for conspiring with others to supply information about waste knowing that the information was false or misleading in a material respect, pursuant to section 144AA(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Between 21 June 2019 and 9 September 2019, Mr Geagea conspired with others to cause 49 waste delivery dockets (also known as tipping dockets) to be supplied to a developer of a construction site at Dulwich Hill. The 49 waste delivery dockets falsely recorded that waste material, included asbestos waste, was lawfully deposited at a licensed landfill facility, in circumstances where it had in fact been unlawfully deposited at a residential property located in Luddenham, NSW.

Mr Geagea was prosecuted by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and pleaded guilty to the offence. Mr Geagea was:

  1. fined $54,000;

  2. ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings; and

  3. ordered to place and pay for this publication notice.

This notice was placed by order of the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Amendments

21 November 2023 - Cover sheet amended - representatives of parties.

Decision last updated: 21 November 2023

Cases Citing This Decision

0