Environment Protection Authority v Riverina Australia Pty Ltd

In the matter of Environment Protection Authority v Riverina Australia Pty Ltd, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) had initiated a prosecution against Riverina Australia Pty Ltd (Riverina) in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (LEC) for water pollution under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The summons issued by the EPA identified the alleged contravention as either a specified instance of pollution or arising from section 257(1) of the Act. Riverina contested the summons, arguing it was bad for duplicity and that section 257(1) negated the need to provide particulars of the pollution by the occupier of the premises. The appeal was subsequently referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal from the LEC, with the LEC proceedings stayed pending the outcome.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the summons was bad for duplicity and whether section 257(1) obviated the need for the prosecutor to provide particulars of the alleged pollution. The court considered whether the summons clearly identified the nature of the contravention and whether section 257(1) negated the requirement for such particulars. The court also needed to determine if the summons correctly identified the contravention as either a specified instance or an offence under section 257(1).

The court found that the summons was bad for duplicity, as it was unclear whether the prosecutor relied on the specified contravention or some other contravention under section 257(1). The court held that section 257(1) is an evidentiary provision that facilitates proof of causation and the occupier of premises is presumed to have caused the pollution unless certain matters are proved. However, the section does not negate the need to prove how and what the pollution was. The court clarified that the prosecutor must still provide particulars of the act of pollution. Therefore, the summons was insufficient as it did not clearly identify the alleged contravention.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the summons was indeed bad for duplicity. The court's reasoning focused on the need for clarity in the summons and the specific requirements of section 257(1) in the context of proving pollution offences. The court's decision underscored the necessity for prosecutors to provide clear and specific details of the alleged pollution, even when relying on section 257(1).