Environment Protection Authority v Hargraves - [2002] NSWLEC 113

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Hargraves [2002] NSWLEC 113

PARTIES:
PROSECUTOR:
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT:
Yolanda Hargraves

FILE NUMBER(S): 50120 of 2001 and 50121 of of 2001

CORAM: Lloyd J

KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- false or misleading information - materiality - knowledge of

LEGISLATION CITED: Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 193, s 203 and s 211(2)
Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 Pt 5

CASES CITED: Environment Protection Authority v Taylor, NSWLEC, Stein J, 10 March 1995, unreported;
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523;
R v Cassell (1998) 45 NSWLR 325;
R v Traino (1987) 45 SASR 473;
The Queen v Davies (1974) 7 SASR 375

DATES OF HEARING: 27/05/2002, 28/05/2002, 29/05/2002 and 30/05/2002

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/11/2002

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
PROSECUTOR:
Mr D A Buchanan SC
SOLICITORS:
Stephen Garrett
DEFENDANT:
Mr C M Harris (barrister)
SOLICITORS:
Matthewsfolbigg

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter Nos.: 50120 - 21 of 2001

ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Lloyd J

OF NEW SOUTH WALES Decision date: 11 July 2002

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

Yolanda Hargraves

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The defendant, Ms Yolanda Hargraves, is charged with two offences against s 211(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the PEO Act”). The section states:

A person who furnishes any information or does any other thing in purported compliance with a requirement made under this Chapter

knowing that it is false or misleading in a material respect is guilty of an offence.

2. The defendant is charged with furnishing information in purported compliance with a requirement under Ch 7 knowing that it is false in a material respect.

Background facts

3. It is convenient to set out firstly those facts which are not disputed and which give rise to the charges.

4. The defendant, together with her husband, Mr N G Hargraves, is a director and shareholder of a company called Pyonex Pty Ltd (“Pyonex”). The company operates a landfill site near Oberon called variously the Balfour Quarry tip or the Mozart Lane landfill. The company takes waste, which is mainly demolition waste at the landfill site. It does not hold a licence for such a waste facility under Pt 5 of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 (“the WM&M Act”). Such a licence is only required when the amount of waste received exceeds 20,000 tonnes in any consecutive period of twelve months.

5. Pyonex was operating the landfill site in accordance with a deed of licence to deposit fill between it and the owner of the land, Oberon Council (“the council”). Under the deed Pyonex was to fill the landfill site with waste for a period of three years commencing 11 March 1998; to deposit waste that was inert waste; to pay a licence fee to the council of $5 per tonne of waste deposited; and to comply with all relevant laws including but not limited to those relating…

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 Hargraves

Details

AGLC: Environment Protection Authority v Hargraves [2002] NSWLEC 113
Case: [2002] NSWLEC 113
Decision Date: 07/11/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Environment Protection Authority v Hargraves, decided by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, involves a prosecution against Yolanda Hargraves for furnishing false information in connection with the operation of a landfill site. The court had to decide whether Hargraves knowingly provided false or misleading information, material to the operation of the landfill site, in purported compliance with environmental regulations. The legal issues included the mens rea required for the offence, the materiality of the information, and the sources of the information provided by Hargraves. The court found that Hargraves knowingly provided false information, which was material to the investigation of the landfill site's compliance with environmental laws. The court concluded that the information's materiality was not negated by the fact that it was initially intended for the Oberon Council. The court found Hargraves guilty on both charges and adjourned the matter for the determination of penalty and costs.

Orders