Environment Protection Authority v Snowy Hydro Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 82 min read
Reported Decision: 162 LGERA 273

Land and Environment Court


of New South Wales


CITATION: Environment Protection Authority v Snowy Hydro Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 264
PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR:
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT:
Snowy Hydro Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S): 50039 of 2007
CORAM: Biscoe J
KEY ISSUES: Environmental Offences :- sentence - polluting waters of river during connection of dam to river at the end of dam upgrade works - pollutant sediment laden waters containing soil, earth, clay or similar inorganic matter - factors to be taken into account on sentencing - principle that an offender cannot be sentenced for a more serious offence.
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 23(1)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW), ss 3(1), 91, 114, 116(1), 119, 120, 123, 241, 246, 248, 250(1)(e), 257
Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 (Cth)
Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 (NSW)
Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 (Vic)
CASES CITED: Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 113 LGERA 357
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 234
Cabonne Shire Council v Environment Protection Authority (2001) 115 LGERA 304
Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Said Khodor El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 270
Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co. (Arbertillery) Ltd [1999] 2 AC 22
Environment Protection Authority v Ballina Shire Council (2006) 148 LGERA 278
Environment Protection Authority v Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd [1998] NSWLEC 304
Environment Protection Authority v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 732
Environment Protection Authority v Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 466
Environment Protection Authority v CSR Building Products Limited [2008] NSWLEC 224
Environment Protection Authority v Daryl McCarthy Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] NSWLEC 223
Environment Protection Authority v Duke Eastern Gas Pipeline Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 84
Environment Protection Authority v Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 268
Environment Protection Authority v G. Pezzimenti & Sons Pty Ltd [1994] NSWLEC 6
Environment Protection Authority v Gosford City Council (1997) 95 LGERA 338
Environment Protection Authority v Hochtief AG and Thiess Pty Limited [2007] NSWLEC 177
Environment Protection Authority v Integral Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 141
Environment Protection Authority v Lithgow City Council [2007] NSWLEC 695
Environment Protection Authority v Nalco Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 831
Environment Protection Authority v Nowra Chemical Manufacturers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWLEC 187
Environment Protection Authority v Sell & Parker (2006) 149 LGERA 209
Environment Protection Authority v Taylor Woodrow (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1997) 97 LGERA 368
Environment Protection Authority v Timber Industries Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 25
Environment Protection Authority v Waste Recycling and Processing Corp (2006) 148 LGERA 299
Hardt v Environment Protection Authority (2007) 156 LGERA 337
Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348
Lovegrove v The Queen [1961] Tas S.R. 206
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
NSW…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Snowy Hydro 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
[2008] NSWLEC 264
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Environment Protection Authority v Snowy Hydro Ltd was an appeal against conviction and penalty for an offence against environmental protection laws. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Environment Protection Authority. The dispute involved the authority’s charge of the defendant, Snowy Hydro Ltd, for an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The defendant was found guilty of causing environmental harm by discharging pollutants into a waterway, contrary to the requirements of their licence. The legal issues before the court were the validity of the conviction and the appropriateness of the penalty imposed. The court needed to determine whether the evidence supported the conviction and whether the penalty was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law. It found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the defendant had indeed discharged pollutants into the waterway, causing environmental harm. The court also noted that the defendant had a history of similar offences, which indicated a pattern of non-compliance. Regarding the penalty, the court considered the principles of sentencing under the relevant legislation and found that the penalty imposed was neither excessive nor inadequate. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to ensure that penalties were sufficient to discourage future breaches.

The court upheld the conviction and penalty, rejecting the defendant’s appeal. The court ordered that the defendant be fined the sum of $100,000 and directed that the defendant pay the prosecutor’s costs and investigation costs as agreed. The exhibits were to be returned to the defendant. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with environmental protection laws and the court's role in enforcing those laws to protect the environment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.

2. The defendant is fined the sum of $100,000.

3. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings agreed in the sum of $84,289.00.

4. The defendant is to pay the prosecutor’s investigation costs under s 248 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 agreed in the sum of $1,897.50.

5. The exhibits may be 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.