Reported Decision: 153 LGERA 238
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Mark Peters [2006] NSWLEC 612 PARTIES: PROSECUTOR
DEFENDANT
Environment Protection Authority
Mark PetersFILE NUMBER(S): 50031 of 2005; 50033 of 2005; 50067 of 2005 CORAM: Jagot J KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- Sentence - use of pesticide other than in accordance with approved label - furnishing records to the EPA knowing they were false in a material respect LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A, s 21A(2), s 21A(3), s 22
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 250(a)
Fines Act 1996 s 6
Pesticides Act 1999 s 15
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 169, s 193, s 211(2), s 241(1)CASES CITED: Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357;
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 234;
Environment Protection Authority v Ableway Waste Management Pty Limited & Anor [2005] NSWLEC 469;
Environment Protection Authority v Gosford City Council [2000] NSWLEC 154;
Environment Protection Authority v Hargraves (No 2) (2003) 124 LGERA 57;
Environment Protection Authority v Le Dome Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 167;
Environment Protection Authority v Mark Peters [2006] NSWLEC 465;
Environment Protection Authority v Wellbourne and Ligano Pty Ltd trading as Manly Warringah Pest Control [1999] NSWLEC 244;
EPA v Barnes [2006] NSWCCA 246;
EPA v Umbers [2001] NSWLEC 67;
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
Reg v O’Neill (1979) 2 NSWLR 582;
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465DATES OF HEARING: 11/09/2006 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 09/11/2006 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: PROSECUTOR
Mr T Howard
SOLICITORS
Department of Environment & ConservationDEFENDANT
No appearance
SOLICITORS
N/A
JUDGMENT:
THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALESJagot J
11 September 2006
50031 of 2005
50033 of 2005
50067 of 2005ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
ProsecutorJUDGMENTMARK PETERS
Defendant
1 I have found proved the offences charged in each summons, as described below.
Proceedings 50033 of 2005
… the defendant, Mark Peters of 25 The Esplanade Drummoyne, in the State of New South Wales … on or about 31st January 2005 as a director of Mandiar Pty Limited (ACN 092 426 045), … committed an offence against section 211(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the “Act”) by reason of section 169(1) of the Act, in that in purported compliance with a requirement made under Chapter 7 of the Act Mandiar Pty Limited furnished records knowing they were false in a material respect.
Proceedings 50067 of 2005
… the defendant, Mark Peters of 25 The Esplanade, Drummoyne, in the State of New South Wales, … as a director of Jalenia Pty Limited (ACN 083 124 725), on or about 16th March 2002 … committed an offence against section 15(1) of the Pesticides Act 1999 (the “Act”) by reason of s 112(1) of the Act, in that at or near 16 Roskell Road, Callala Beach,…
Continue reading Environment Protection Authority v Peters
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Environment Protection Authority v Peters [2006] NSWLEC 612
- Case
- [2006] NSWLEC 612
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the details of the alleged breaches, including the specific regulations that were violated, the extent of the non-compliance, and any mitigating factors. It was necessary to determine whether Peters had acted intentionally or negligently, as this would influence the severity of the penalty. The court considered the precedents set by similar cases to ensure consistency in the application of the law. After carefully reviewing the evidence and legal arguments, the court concluded that Peters was indeed guilty of the charges brought by the Environment Protection Authority. It was determined that the breaches warranted financial penalties, with the exact amount varying based on the specifics of each case.
The court found Peters guilty in all three proceedings and imposed fines accordingly. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the legal principles relevant to environmental law. The fines were set to reflect the seriousness of the breaches and to serve as a deterrent against future non-compliance. The exhibits were ordered to be returned to Peters, as per the standard procedure in such cases. The final orders included convictions and fines in each of the proceedings, with the amounts differing based on the specific circumstances of each charge.
Orders
Orders of the court
In proceedings 50033 of 2005: (1) The defendant is convicted of the offence charged. (2) The defendant is fined the sum of $80,000 for this offence. (3) The exhibits are returned. In proceedings 50067 of 2005: (1) The defendant is convicted of the offence charged. (2) The defendant is fined the sum of $6000 for this offence. (3) The exhibits are returned. In proceedings 50031 of 2005: (1) The defendant is convicted of the offence charged. (2) The defendant is fined the sum of $6000 for this offence. (3) The exhibits are returned.
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.