Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes - [2020] NSWLEC 37

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes [2020] NSWLEC 37
Hearing dates: 18 March 2020
Date of orders: 24 April 2020
Decision date: 24 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Class 5
Before: Duggan J
Decision:
See paragraphs 90 and 91

Catchwords: CRIME – environmental offences – s 7 Pesticides Act 1999 – s 10 Pesticides Act 1999 – negligent use of a pesticide in a manner that injured another person – use of a pesticide in a manner that injured another person – definition of “store” within “use” – whether defendant stored the pesticide – whether store contains an element of “future use” – was the conduct criminally negligent – where charge particularises actual injury rather than likelihood of harm – risk turns on degree of accessibility – defendant held to use the pesticide – criminal negligence not found
Legislation Cited: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Regulations 1995
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code 1994
Pesticides Act 1999
Cases Cited: Chief Executive, Office of Environment & Heritage v Orica Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Orica Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 109
Environmental Protection Authority v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (No 2) (1993) 78 LGERA 373
Environmental Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd & Mackenzie [2019] NSWCCA 174
Environmental Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Warwick McInnes (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Pritchard SC and G Lewer (Prosecutor)
S Nash (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor)
Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/266434 and 2018/309955
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Nature of the proceedings

The Defendant has been charged with the following offences:

Proceedings 2018/309955 (the Negligence Charge) – that on or about 10 August 2017, at or near Mangrove Mountain in the State of New South Wales, the Defendant committed an offence against s 7(1)(a) of the Pesticides Act1999 (Pesticides Act) in that he negligently used a pesticide in a manner that injured another person; and

Proceedings 2018/266434 (the s 10 Charge) – that on or about 10 August 2017, at or near Mangrove Mountain in the State of New South Wales, the Defendant committed an offence against s 10(1)(a) of the Pesticides Act in that he used a pesticide in a manner that injured another person.

The Defendant has pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The two offences are similar in substance as both relate to the use of pesticides causing injury to a person. The only material difference between the two charges is that the Negligence Charge requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant acted in a manner that is capable of being characterised as criminal negligence. If the Negligence Charge is made out then the Prosecution does not press the s 10 Charge. However, if criminal negligence is not established, but the other elements of the charge…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes 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: [2020] NSWLEC 37
Decision Date: 24 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes, the respondent was accused of contravening environmental laws by disposing of waste in an unapproved manner. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) brought the action against McInnes, asserting that he had failed to comply with statutory obligations regarding waste disposal, leading to environmental harm. McInnes contested these allegations, arguing that his actions did not breach the relevant environmental regulations.

The court was tasked with determining whether McInnes had indeed contravened the statutory provisions and if his actions constituted an environmental offence. Key issues included the interpretation of the statutory requirements, the nature of the waste disposal activities, and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the environmental laws. The court had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to determine liability.

The court found that McInnes had indeed breached the environmental regulations. The reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the statutory provisions and the evidence provided. The court concluded that the respondent's actions constituted an unauthorised disposal of waste, which was in clear violation of the statutory requirements. The court considered the seriousness of the environmental impact and the respondent's failure to obtain the necessary approvals before disposing of the waste. Consequently, the court held McInnes liable for the contraventions.

The final orders of the court were that McInnes was to be fined for each contravention and ordered to take specific remedial actions to mitigate the environmental damage caused by the unauthorised waste disposal. The court also mandated that McInnes comply with all future environmental regulations to prevent any further breaches.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 90 and 91

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes [2020] NSWLEC 37
Hearing dates:	18 March 2020
Date of orders:	24 April 2020
Decision date:	24 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Class 5
Before:	Duggan J
Decision:	See paragraphs 90 and 91
Catchwords:	CRIME – environmental offences – s 7 Pesticides Act 1999 – s 10 Pesticides Act 1999 – negligent use of a pesticide in a manner that injured another person – use of a pesticide in a manner that injured another person – definition of “store” within “use” – whether defendant stored the pesticide – whether store contains an element of “future use” – was the conduct criminally negligent – where charge particularises actual injury rather than likelihood of harm – risk turns on degree of accessibility – defendant held to use the pesticide – criminal negligence not found
Legislation Cited:	Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Regulations 1995 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code 1994 Pesticides Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Chief Executive, Office of Environment & Heritage v Orica Pty Ltd; Environment Protection Authority v Orica Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 109 Environmental Protection Authority v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (No 2) (1993) 78 LGERA 373 Environmental Protection Authority v Grafil Pty Ltd & Mackenzie [2019] NSWCCA 174 Environmental Protection Authority v Sydney Water Corporation [2019] NSWLEC 100 R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
Texts Cited:	Macquarie Dictionary
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Warwick McInnes (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: S Pritchard SC and G Lewer (Prosecutor) S Nash (Defendant) Solicitors: Office of the Environment Protection Authority (Prosecutor) Shaw Reynolds Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2018/266434 and 2018/309955
Publication restriction:	No