Environment Protection Authority v Dib Hanna Abdallah Hanna [2018] NSWLEC 80
Hearing dates:
14 May 2018
Date of orders:
31 May 2018
Decision date:
31 May 2018
Jurisdiction:
Class 5
Before:
Preston CJ
Decision:
See orders at [294]
Catchwords:
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES – repeat waste offender – unlawful transporting and depositing of waste – pollution of land – sentence – offender’s conduct offended against objects of statute and offence provisions – substantial harm to environment – premeditated and intentional commission of offences – offences committed to save expense of paying tipping fees – reasonable foreseeability of harm – practical measures to prevent harm not taken – control over causes of offence – offences of medium to high objective gravity – subjective circumstances – significant record of prior convictions – pleas of guilty – limited remorse for offences – likelihood of re-offending – sentence to implement retributive, preventative and restorative purposes of sentencing – appropriate sentence – no penalty other than imprisonment appropriate – aggregate sentence for five offences of 3 years imprisonment – fine in addition to imprisonment not appropriate – order for publication and order for restoration appropriate – order for costs made
Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 3A, 21A, 22, 24(a), 44(2B), 47, 53A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ss 246(1), 257B, 257G Environment Operations Amendment (Illegal Waste Disposal) Act 2013 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Fines Act 1996 ss 4(1), 6 Fines Regulation 2015 Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 s 5 Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 cl 109 Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 cl 6(2) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ss 142A, 142C, 143, 144AB, 241(1), 245, 250(1)(a); Sch 1, cll 49, 50
[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 Hanna
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Dib Hanna Abdallah Hanna [2018] NSWLEC 80
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 80
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) taking action against Hanna for breaches of environmental laws. The dispute centred around Hanna's alleged non-compliance with waste management regulations, specifically in relation to the disposal of hazardous waste. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. First, whether Hanna had indeed failed to comply with the relevant environmental regulations. Second, if so, whether such non-compliance constituted a breach of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). Finally, the court had to assess the appropriate penalties and remedies to be imposed on Hanna for the alleged breaches.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence provided by the EPA and Hanna's defence. The court found that Hanna had failed to adhere to the prescribed waste management protocols, leading to the generation of hazardous waste. The court held that these actions constituted a clear breach of the statutory obligations under the Environment Protection Act. Considering the severity and impact of the breaches, the court imposed a fine on Hanna and mandated specific remedial actions to rectify the environmental harm caused.