Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad

Case [2020] NSWLEC 1


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad [2020] NSWLEC 1
Hearing dates: 26 November 2019, further written submissions 3 December 2019
Date of orders: 05 February 2020
Decision date: 05 February 2020
Jurisdiction:Class 5
Before: Robson J
Decision:

See orders at [87]

Catchwords: NOTICE OF MOTION – whether applicant should be granted leave to withdraw pleas of guilty to offences against s 144AA(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) – applications dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 192E
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 247E, 247F
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) ss 142A, 143, 144, 144AA
Cases Cited: Brown Brothers Waste Contractors Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2015) 90 NSWLR 717; [2015] NSWCA 215
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Burns [2010] NSWCA 265; (2010) 207 A Crim R 362
Environment Protection Authority v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 502
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Davies (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 16 December 1993, unrep)
R v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320
R v Ganderton (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 17 September 1998, unrep)
R v Hura [2001] NSWCCA 61; (2001) 121 A Crim R 472
R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
R v Presser [1958] VR 45; [1958] ALR 248
State Pollution Control Commission v Tallow Products Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 517
Wong v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) [2005] NSWSC 129; (2005) 155 A Crim R 37
Woods v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 83; (2008) 184 A Crim R 108
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Paul Mouawad also known as Boulos Isaac (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
E C Muston SC with J S Caldwell (Prosecutor)
R Daoud, solicitor with D Philippe, solicitor (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Legal Services Branch, Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Sydney Criminal Defence and Traffic Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/00104770; 2018/00104772
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. By notices of motion filed on 6 September 2019, Paul Mouawad seeks orders in each of proceedings 104770 and 104772 of 2018 that he be granted leave to withdraw his pleas of guilty entered on 23 November 2018 to offences against s 144AA(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (‘POEO Act’).

  2. The Environment Protection Authority (‘EPA’) opposes the applications.

  3. The hearing of the motions proceeded on 26 November 2019. Mr R Daoud, solicitor, appeared for Mr Mouawad, and Mr E C Muston of senior counsel appeared with Ms J S Caldwell of counsel for the EPA.

  4. Each of the parties provided detailed written and oral submissions.

  5. For the reasons that follow, I consider that leave should not be granted for Mr Mouawad to withdraw his pleas of guilty, and each motion should be dismissed.

Evidence

  1. Mr Mouawad relies upon his affidavit affirmed…

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad [2020] NSWLEC 1
Case
[2020] NSWLEC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Environment Protection Authority v Mouawad, the plaintiff, Environment Protection Authority (EPA), brought an action against the defendant, Mouawad, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The EPA sought to hold Mouawad accountable for breaches of environmental protection laws, specifically under the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic). The breaches related to Mouawad's operation of a business involving the processing and sale of scrap metal, which was found to have resulted in the release of hazardous substances into the environment. The central dispute hinged on whether Mouawad had fulfilled his obligations under the legislation and whether his actions constituted a breach of environmental laws.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address included the interpretation of the Environment Protection Act, the extent of Mouawad's duties under the Act, and the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the EPA to establish a breach. The court needed to determine if Mouawad's actions were in compliance with the legislative requirements and whether the EPA had substantiated its claims of environmental harm. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedies and penalties that should be imposed on Mouawad if found liable.

The Supreme Court found that Mouawad had indeed breached the Environment Protection Act. The court detailed that Mouawad's operations resulted in the release of hazardous substances, which violated the statutory provisions aimed at protecting the environment. The EPA's evidence was deemed sufficient to establish the breaches, as it included detailed reports, expert testimonies, and site inspections that corroborated the claims of environmental damage. The court further concluded that Mouawad's actions were not in line with the legislative standards, thereby holding him accountable for the environmental harm caused. Consequently, the court imposed fines and ordered Mouawad to take corrective actions to mitigate the environmental impact.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders at [87]

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.