Environment Protection Authority v Allan Andrew Keogh [1999] NSWLEC 128

Environment Protection Authority v Allan Andrew Keogh [1999] NSWLEC 128

The Court was satisfied beyond doubt that, after the orders of 21 September 1998, the defendant permitted additional material to be brought onto the premises in breach of the orders. The defendant's explanations were inconsistent and unreliable, while the prosecution evidence from inspections, photographs and transport records established that further waste had been deposited. His deliberate failure to comply with the subpoena to produce documents also amounted to a separate contempt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings Arising From Environmental Offence Orders / Judgment on Liability and Penalty
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of contempt for breach of the Court's orders and guilty of a separate contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena; fined for the subpoena contempt and sentencing for the breach of orders deferred.
Legal Topics
['waste Disposal' 'breach of Court Orders' 'criminal Standard of Proof' 'subpoena Compliance']
['environmental Law' 'contempt of Court'] ['waste Disposal' 'breach of Court Orders' 'criminal Standard of Proof' 'subpoena Compliance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings Arising From Environmental Offence Orders / Judgment on Liability and Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant disobeyed Order 4(3) made on 21 September 1998 by unlawfully depositing, placing or otherwise disposing of further waste on the property at 34-60 Bradley Street, Orchard Hills after that date.' "Whether the defendant's failure to produce documents in answer to a subpoena constituted a separate contempt." 'What penalty should be imposed for the proven contempts.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond doubt that, after the orders of 21 September 1998, the defendant permitted additional material to be brought onto the premises in breach of the orders. The defendant's explanations were inconsistent and unreliable, while the prosecution evidence from inspections, photographs and transport records established that further waste had been deposited. His deliberate failure to comply with the subpoena to produce documents also amounted to a separate contempt.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of contempt for breach of the Court's orders and guilty of a separate contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena; fined for the subpoena contempt and sentencing for the breach of orders deferred.

Orders

  • ["In respect of the defendant's failure to comply with the production of documents in answer to the subpoena issued by the prosecution, the defendant is judged guilty." 'For the subpoena contempt, the defendant is fined the sum of $5000.' 'In default of payment of the fine within 28 days, the defendant is to be...