Farrell v Bridge

[1988] NSWLEC 133

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Farrell v Bridge [1988] NSWLEC 133
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Farrell RESPONDANT Bridge
FILE NUMBER(S):	50014 of 1987
CORAM:	Bignold J
KEY ISSUES:	:-
LEGISLATION CITED:	Waste Disposal Act 1970
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	08/23/1988
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

JUDGMENT:

Bignold J.: The Defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge that between October 1987 and February 1988 he did breach section 23(6) of the Waste Disposal Act 1970 in that he did fail to comply with a condition attached to his license to transport waste requiring that he only discharge grease trap waste at a depot approved by the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority.

The evidence indicates that in the aforesaid period the Defendant disposed of a total volume of grease trap waste exceeding 500,000 litres at a place not being an approved depot.

The Defendant has held a license to transport grease trap waste since January 1983 and this is the first offence under the Waste Disposal Act 1970 with which he has been charged.

The Prosecutor has informed the Court that the Defendant has co-operated with the Authority in its investigation of the breaches of the Act (except to inform the Authority the precise location where he disposed of the aforesaid volume of grease trap waste other than to identify it as land at Mangrove Mountain in the Wyong Shire).

I take these matters into account in the Defendant's favour.

However I also take into account the extended period of some 4 months during which the Defendant breached the Act and the very large volume of grease trap waste unlawfully disposed of by the Defendant.

It also appears that the Defendant had, in an attempt to conceal his wrong doing, engaged in some improper if not fraudulent practice concerning the "docket system" administered by the Authority as part of its regulation of the collection and disposal of grease trap waste.

Other than to make a plea for leniency on account of this being his first offence the Defendant has not proffered any evidence in explanation or mitigation of his wrong doing.

Section 23(6) of the Waste Disposal Act 1970 relevantly provides as follows:-

"(6) The holder of .......... a license granted under this Part shall comply with any conditions for the time being attached to the license.

Penalty: One thousand dollars ..............".

I regard the breach of the Act in the present case to be deliberate and serious and deserving of the maximum penalty notwithstanding the Defendant's previous good record as a license holder, his co-operation in the Authority's investigation of the breach and his plea of guilty.

Accordingly I make the following orders:-

1. The Defendant be convicted of the offence charged.

2. A penalty of $1,000 be imposed in respect of the aforesaid conviction, such sum to be paid to the Registrar of this Court within 28 days of today's date.

3. The Defendant pay the Prosecutor's costs of $1,694 such sum to be paid to the Registrar of this Court within 60 days of today's date to be disbursed by him according to law.