Environment Protection Authority v Laison

Case [2018] NSWLEC 76


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Laison [2018] NSWLEC 76
Hearing dates: 9 November 2017
Date of orders: 30 May 2018
Decision date: 30 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

Orders at paragraph [71]

Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: Sentence – plea of guilty to an offence regarding false waste documentation – objective and subjective considerations – aggravating and mitigating circumstances – fine and costs.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986,
Environmental Trust Act 1998
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Road Rules 2014
Cases Cited: Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Limited (2006) 145 LGERA 234; [2006] NSWLEC 34
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Environment Protection Authority v Aargus Pty Ltd; Kariotoglu; Kelly [2013] NSWLEC 19
Environment Protection Authority v Ashmore [2014] NSWLEC 136
Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council (2006) 148 LGERA 278; [2006] NSWLEC 289
Environment Protection Authority v Fernando and Another [2003] NSWLEC 281
Environment Protection Authority v Laison [2015] NSWLEC 89
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (2006) 148 LGERA 299; [2006] NSWLEC 419
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Mathews v Goulburn Wool Processors, NSWSC, Smart J, 6 November 1986, unreported
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Newcastle City Council v Pace Farm Egg Products [2002] NSWLEC 66
Plath v Rawson (2009) 170 LGERA 253; [2009] NSWLEC 178
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Mathew Toheroa Laison (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P English, barrister, with Ms K Lindeman, barrister (Prosecutor)
Ms F Sinclair, barrister (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
V L Macri Lawyers Pty Limited (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/358581

Judgment

Introduction

  1. The Defendant, Mr Matthew Laison, has pleaded guilty to an offence under s 144AA(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“POEO Act”), in that he supplied information about waste to another person in the course of dealing with that waste, the information being false or misleading in a material respect.

  2. The specified “charge period” was “between about 29 October 2012 and 18 December 2012 inclusive”, but in the particulars to the summons, the Prosecutor charged that Mr Laison supplied, to Gesu Lustri, on 29 October 2012, two documents, purporting to be weighbridge dockets issued by SITA Australia Pty Ltd (“SITA”), and which were not in fact weighbridge dockets issued by SITA, in the course of disposing of waste from 33 York Street, Sydney.

  3. The offence occurred near Kemps Creek NSW, in the course of Mr Lustri or his company’s subcontracting of the Defendant to assist him with the disposal of general building waste from 33 York St, but the offence first came to…

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Laison

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Laison [2018] NSWLEC 76
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 76
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Environment Protection Authority v Laison, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) brought an action against Laison, an individual, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The EPA sought to enforce an Environmental Protection Notice issued under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), which required Laison to cease and prevent pollution from his property. The dispute centred around the EPA's assertion that Laison's property was a source of significant pollution, specifically the emission of odours that affected nearby residents, and that he had failed to comply with the notice.

The court was required to determine whether the EPA had correctly identified Laison as the source of the pollution and whether the Environmental Protection Notice was valid and enforceable. The key legal issues involved the interpretation of the statutory provisions regarding the issuance and enforcement of Environmental Protection Notices, the burden of proof, and the extent of the court's discretion in ordering compliance and penalties.

The court found that the EPA had correctly identified Laison as the source of the pollution and that the Environmental Protection Notice was valid and enforceable. The court held that the EPA had provided sufficient evidence to establish that Laison's property was a significant source of the odours affecting nearby residents. The court also found that the EPA had met the burden of proof required to enforce the notice and that the court had the discretion to order compliance and impose penalties as specified in the notice. The court ultimately ordered Laison to comply with the notice and to pay a penalty for his non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders at paragraph [71]

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.