Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 114
Hearing dates:28 July 2014
Decision date: 28 July 2014
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

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

(2)The Defendant is fined the sum of $30,000.

(3)The Defendant is ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs as agreed, or assessed according to law.

(4)Pursuant to s 250(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997:

(a)The Defendant, at its expense, must within 28 days of the date of this order cause a notice, in the form of Annexure A to this judgment, to be placed within the first 5 pages of the following publications at a minimum size of 10 cm x 18 cm:

(i)Wednesday edition of the Port Macquarie News, and

(ii)Wauchope Gazette.

(b)Within 35 days of the date of this order, the Defendant must provide to the Prosecutor a complete copy of the page of the publications in which the notice appears.

(5)The Exhibits are retained.

Catchwords: ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES: Breach of conditions of Environment Protection Licence - quarry exceeded its prescribed output - early plea of guilty - denial of environmental harm - claim of impecuniosity - fine - costs - publication order.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
Cases Cited: Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 34; (2006) 145 LGERA 234
Environment Protection Authority v Chillana Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 255
Environment Protection Authority v M A Roche Group Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Roche [2013] NSWLEC 191
Environment Protection Authority v Pal [2009] NSWLEC 35
Minister for Planning v Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 246
R v Rahme (1989) 43 A Crim R 81
R v Thomson, R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Category:Sentence
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
M A Roche Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Ms M Junor, solicitor (Prosecutor)
Mr M A Roche, director (Defendant)
Office of Environment and Heritage (Prosecutor)
N/A (Defendant)
File Number(s):50032 of 2014

EXTEMPORE Judgment

  1. The defendant is a family company which operates a quarry, trading as "Volcanic Resources", at or near 129 Milligans Rd, Wauchope, and also does contract crushing and carrying, off-site.

  1. It is charged with breaching the terms of its 2005 environment protection licence ("EPL") No. 12364 by exceeding the 30,000 tonne handling limit in condition A1.2(b), in the year January 2012 - January 2013. The maximum penalty for the offence is $1M.

  1. The operations of the quarry are fully described in documentation before the Court, and several photographs are also in evidence.

  1. In the course of agreement upon two statements of relevant facts (Exhibits P1 and P2), the defendant conceded that it had also exceeded its limit in earlier years by a minimum of 5,000, if not 15,000 tonnes (agreed fact ("AF") 21).

  1. The agreements on facts have greatly…

CaseChat AU logo

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
[2014] NSWLEC 114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Environment Protection Authority brought a case against M A Roche Group Pty Ltd in a NSW court. The dispute centred on an alleged offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, specifically in relation to the improper disposal of waste. The court was required to determine whether the Defendant was guilty of the offence and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Defendant had contravened the provisions of the Act by failing to ensure that waste was disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. The court had to consider the evidence presented, including the details of the waste disposal process, the compliance with relevant regulations, and the potential environmental impact of the Defendant’s actions.

After evaluating the evidence, the court found the Defendant guilty of the offence. It was determined that the Defendant had not adequately managed the disposal of waste, leading to environmental harm. The court imposed a fine of $30,000, ordered the Defendant to publish a notice of conviction in specified newspapers, and mandated the submission of copies of the published notices to the Prosecutor. The court also ordered the Defendant to pay the Prosecutor's costs. The exhibits were retained for future reference.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

(2)The Defendant is fined the sum of $30,000.

(3)The Defendant is ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs as agreed, or assessed according to law.

(4)Pursuant to s 250(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997:

(a)The Defendant, at its expense, must within 28 days of the date of this order cause a notice, in the form of Annexure A to this judgment, to be placed within the first 5 pages of the following publications at a minimum size of 10 cm x 18 cm:

(i)Wednesday edition of the Port Macquarie News, and

(ii)Wauchope Gazette.

(b)Within 35 days of the date of this order, the Defendant must provide to the Prosecutor a complete copy of the page of the publications in which the notice appears.

(5)The Exhibits are 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.