Environment Protection Authority v Maraline Pty Ltd - [1998] NSWLEC 143

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v. Maraline Pty Ltd [1998] NSWLEC 143

PARTIES:
PROSECUTOR
Environmental Planning Authority
DEFENDANT
Maraline Pty Ltd
PROSECUTOR
Environmental Planning Authority
DEFENDANT
Peter Suciu

FILE NUMBER(S): 50087; 50088 of 1997

CORAM: Pearlman J

KEY ISSUES: :-

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 ss 8DA, 10(1)
Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 ss 68(1), 85

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING: 15/04/98, 16/04/98, 07/05/98, 24/06/98, 25/06/98, 26/06/98

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/21/1998

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
PROSECUTOR
Mr B F Rowe, Barrister
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT
Mr J R Perrignon, Barrister
Margiotta

JUDGMENT:

1. These prosecutions concern an allegation that the defendant, Maraline Pty Ltd, provided false or misleading information in a material respect in response to a notice issued under s 68 of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 ("the Waste Act"). The defendant, Mr Petre Suciu, is a director of Maraline Pty Ltd.

2. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the respective charges, and by leave both prosecutions were heard together.

The respective charges

3. The defendant Maraline Pty Ltd ("Maraline") is charged with committing an offence against the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 ("the EO&P Act") in that, in complying with a requirement under s 68 of the Waste Act, it provided information that was false or misleading in a material respect, contrary to s 85 of the Waste Act.

4. The defendant, Mr Petre Suciu is charged under s 10 of the EO&P Act with contravening the same provision as Maraline.

The statutory regime

5. Section 68 of the Waste Act is in the following terms:

"68(1) The EPA may, by notice in writing, require any person to provide the EPA with such information or other data in the person's possession (or that is within the person's power to lawfully obtain) in connection with the transportation, collection, reception, treatment, re-use, reprocessing, storage and disposal of any waste created by, or in the possession or under the control of, that person.

(2) A person who neglects or fails to comply with any such requirement is guilty of an offence against the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.

(3) Any information provided by an individual under this section is not admissible in any proceedings against the person (other than for an offence referred to in section 85) if the person objected at the time of providing it to doing so on the ground that it might tend to incriminate the person."

6. Section 85 of the Waste Act relevantly provides as follows:

"85 A person is guilty of an offence against the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 if the person:

(a) ...

(b) in complying with a requirement under section ... 68,

provides any information ... that is false or misleading in a material respect."

7. Section 8DA(2) of the EO&P Act provides that any person who, by virtue of any provision of the Waste Act, is guilty of an offence specified in…

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 Maraline 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: [1998] NSWLEC 143
Decision Date: 08/21/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard a case involving Maraline Pty Ltd and its director, Mr Petre Suciu, who were prosecuted for providing false or misleading information in response to a notice issued under the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995. The defendants were charged under the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 for providing information that was false or misleading in a material respect. The key issue for the court was whether Mr Suciu delivered a load of waste to the Kemps Creek depot on 17 April 1996. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that Mr Suciu did not deliver a load of waste to the Kemps Creek depot on 17 April 1996, and therefore, the information provided to the EPA by Mr Suciu on behalf of Maraline on 20 September 1996 was false or misleading in a material respect. Consequently, the court found both Maraline and Mr Suciu guilty of the offence under the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.

The court's reasoning was based on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented. The court found Mr Saab, the manager of the Kemps Creek depot, to be a reliable witness, as his evidence was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses. On the other hand, the court did not find Mr Suciu and Mr Stan's evidence to be reliable due to inconsistencies and discrepancies in their testimonies. The court also considered the evidence of Mr Pirko and Mr Pascalau but found it to be less credible, as it was not corroborated by any other evidence.

Based on the findings of fact, the court concluded that Maraline provided false or misleading information in response to the notice issued under the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995. As a result, Maraline was found guilty of an offence against the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989. Furthermore, since Mr Suciu was a director of Maraline, he was also found guilty of the same offence under the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989. The court reserved the questions of conviction, penalty, and costs for later determination.

Orders