Legal Research
Cases
Environment Protection Authority v Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd

Environment Protection Authority v Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd

Case [2006] NSWLEC 123 17 March 2006

Regulatory Compliance

Specific Deterrence

General Deterrence

Public Safety

Environmental Offences

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 123

PARTIES: PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT
Patrick Distribution Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): 50052 of 2005

CORAM: Pain J

KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- Sentencing principles - specific deterrence - equal justice in sentencing - availability of alternative charges - mitigating factors

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914-1975 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997
Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) (Road) Regulation 1998
Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995 (Cth)
Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1997 (Cth)
Social Services Act 1947 (Cth)

CASES CITED: Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (2001) 113 LGERA 357 ;
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75;
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1;
Cooper v Coffs Harbour City Council (1997) 97 LGERA 125;
Environmental Protection Authority v Embridge Crest Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 238;
Environmental Protection Authority v Moama Refinery Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 244;
Fairfield City Council v Cavasinni Constructions Pty Limited [2005] NSWLEC 187;
GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen [2004] HCA 22;
Geiger v The Queen [2001] FCA 475;
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501;
Nesmat Pty Limited v Workcover Authority of New South Wales (1998) 87 IR 312 ;
Postiglione v The Queen (1987) 189 CLR 295 ;
R v Minh Zoa Liang (1995) 82 A Crim R 39;
R v O’Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582;
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300;
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
Ryde City Council v Calleija (1998) 99 LGERA 360;
Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 558;
Wong v Melinda Group Pty Ltd 82 IR 118 ;
Scott Cameron v Eurobodalla Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 47

DATES OF HEARING: 06/03/06

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
03/17/2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
PROSECUTOR
T.G. Howard (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Environment Protection Authority
DEFENDANT
P. McDonald (Barrister)
SOLICITORS
Blake Dawson Waldron

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Pain J

17 March 2006

50052 of 2005 Environmental Protection Authority v Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd
JUDGMENT

1 Her Honour: The Defendant, Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd, has pleaded guilty to a charge under s37(1) of the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997 (the Dangerous Goods Act), that it was involved in the transportation of dangerous goods by road or rail and failed to ensure, as far as practicable, that the goods were transported in a safe manner. The plea of guilty means that the essential legal elements of the offence have been admitted.

Background

2 The summons, filed on 1 November 2005, alleges that on 25 February 2004, in the locations of Arndell Park and Little Hartley in the State of New South Wales and along the section of the Great Western…

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.

Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Patrick Distribution Pty...

Details

AGLC: Environment Protection Authority v Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 123
Case: [2006] NSWLEC 123
Decision Date: 03/17/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales involves a prosecution by the Environment Protection Authority against Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd, which pleaded guilty to a charge under s37(1) of the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1997. The Defendant admitted to being involved in the transportation of dangerous goods by road and failing to ensure, as far as practicable, that the goods were transported in a safe manner by not ensuring the vehicle was correctly placarded. The key legal issues for the Court to determine were sentencing principles, including specific deterrence, equal justice in sentencing, the availability of alternative charges, and mitigating factors. The Court found that the maximum penalty for the offence was $250,000 for a corporation, but took into account the availability of a lesser charge under the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Regulations (NSW) with a maximum penalty of $15,000 for a corporation. The Court also considered the principle of equal justice in sentencing and mitigating factors, including the Defendant's early guilty plea, its cooperation with the Prosecutor, and its role as a responsible corporate citizen. The Court ultimately decided on a penalty of $9,750, which represents a 35% discount for the early guilty plea and other mitigating factors.

The Court ordered that Patrick Distribution Pty Ltd is convicted of the offence with which it is charged, fined the sum of $9,750 to be paid to the Registrar of the Court within 28 days of the judgment date, and that each party pay its own costs, as agreed by the parties. The exhibits may be returned.

Orders