Legal Research
Cases
Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd

Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 2 March 2015 21 min read

Contents

On this page

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 29
Hearing dates: 2 March 2015
Date of orders: 02 March 2015
Decision date: 02 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Craig J
Decision:
(1) The Defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.
(2) The Defendant is fined the sum of $52,000.
(3) The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor’s legal costs agreed in the sum of $9,750.65.
(4) The Exhibits are to be retained.
Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: sentence - s 64 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 - breach of conditions of environment protection licence – quarry exceeded its prescribed output – low to moderate range of harm - early plea of guilty – prior offences - claim of impecuniosity - fine - costs.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)
Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
Mining Act 1992 (NSW)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bankstown City Council v Hanna [2014] NSWLEC 152
Environment Protection Authority v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 211
Environment Protection Authority v Geoff Robinson Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Robinson [2011] NSWLEC 14
Environmental Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 114
Environment Protection Authority v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (Nitric Acid Air Lift Incident) [2014] NSWLEC 103
Category: Sentence
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
M A Roche Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Junor (solicitor) (Prosecutor)
M A Roche, director (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of Environment and Heritage (Prosecutor)
N/A (Defendant in person)

File Number(s): 50650 of 2014

EX TEMPORE Judgment

The Defendant, M A Roche Pty Ltd is the owner and operator of a quarry at Wauchope (the quarry) on the mid north coast of New South Wales. Its legal entitlement to operate that quarry is circumscribed not only by a development consent granted in 1995 but also, and relevantly, by a licence issued under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (the POEO Act).
The Defendant has pleaded guilty to an offence against s 64(1) of the POEO Act and is now to be sentenced for that offence. The charge to which the plea of guilty has been entered is that between 5 January 2013 and 4 January 2014 the Defendant contravened a condition of the environment protection licence issued to it that, in terms, limited 30,000 tonnes as the total tonnage of quarry materials that could be handled in any 12 month period. During the charge period the Defendant handled 62,475.11 tonnes of quarry material.
Section 64 of the POEO Act relevantly provides:

“64 Failure to comply with condition
(1) Offence
If any condition of a licence is contravened by any person, each holder of the licence is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty:
(a) in the case of a corporation - $1,000,000 and,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWLEC 29
Decision Date: 02 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd, the defendant, a company, faced charges brought by the Environment Protection Authority for alleged breaches of environmental regulations. The dispute centred on the defendant's failure to comply with waste management obligations under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The Authority sought penalties and convictions against the company for its failure to adhere to specific waste disposal requirements, which allegedly resulted in environmental harm.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the defendant had indeed failed to meet its statutory obligations and, if so, the appropriate penalty for such breaches. The court examined the evidence presented regarding the defendant's management practices, the specific provisions of the Act that were contravened, and the extent of any environmental harm caused. The defendant contested the allegations, arguing that it had taken reasonable steps to comply with the regulations and that any issues were due to unforeseeable circumstances.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant had indeed breached the environmental regulations. The court detailed the specific sections of the Act that were violated and considered the evidence provided by the Authority, which demonstrated the extent of non-compliance and the resultant environmental impact. The court accepted that the defendant had acted negligently but also took into account mitigating factors, such as the company's previous compliance record and efforts to rectify the situation. The penalty imposed reflected both the seriousness of the breaches and the mitigating factors. The court ordered the defendant to pay a fine and the legal costs of the Authority.

The final orders included a conviction against the defendant, a fine of $52,000, an order for the payment of legal costs amounting to $9,750.65, and a direction that the exhibits be retained for future reference. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to environmental regulations and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.

(2) The Defendant is fined the sum of $52,000.

(3) The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor’s legal costs agreed in the sum of $9,750.65.

(4) The Exhibits are to be retained.

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 M A Roche Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 29
Hearing dates:	2 March 2015
Date of orders:	02 March 2015
Decision date:	02 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	(1) The Defendant is convicted of the offence as charged. (2) The Defendant is fined the sum of $52,000. (3) The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor’s legal costs agreed in the sum of $9,750.65. (4) The Exhibits are to be retained.
Catchwords:	ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: sentence - s 64 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 - breach of conditions of environment protection licence – quarry exceeded its prescribed output – low to moderate range of harm - early plea of guilty – prior offences - claim of impecuniosity - fine - costs.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) Fines Act 1996 (NSW) Mining Act 1992 (NSW) Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bankstown City Council v Hanna [2014] NSWLEC 152 Environment Protection Authority v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 211 Environment Protection Authority v Geoff Robinson Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Robinson [2011] NSWLEC 14 Environmental Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 114 Environment Protection Authority v Orica Australia Pty Ltd (Nitric Acid Air Lift Incident) [2014] NSWLEC 103
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) M A Roche Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: M Junor (solicitor) (Prosecutor) M A Roche, director (Defendant) Solicitors: Office of Environment and Heritage (Prosecutor) N/A (Defendant in person)
File Number(s):	50650 of 2014