Environment Protection Authority v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 45

Environment Protection Authority v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 4) [2021] NSWLEC 45

The offence was one of strict liability under s 64 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Although actual environmental harm occurred, it was limited in duration and scale, and resulted from actions of a specialist contractor rather than the Defendant. The Court found the objective seriousness at the low end of the spectrum, as the Defendant had reasonable systems in place and its culpability was minor. Accordingly, a fine of $50,000 was imposed, with additional orders for payment of legal and investigative costs and the fine to be paid to the Environmental Trust. A publication order was refused as it would not serve a proper deterrent or denunciatory function given the...

Parties
Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Sentencing / Sentence After Conviction on Plea of Not Guilty
Outcome
Defendant convicted; fined; payment to Environmental Trust ordered; costs to prosecutor; publication order refused.
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Strict Liability, Breach of Environmental Licence, Objective Seriousness, Mitigating Factors
Environmental Law Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Strict Liability Breach of Environmental Licence Objective Seriousness Mitigating Factors

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sentencing / Sentence After Conviction on Plea of Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd for breaching a condition of its Environmental Protection Licence, contrary to s 64 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997?
  2. 2 What is the objective seriousness of the offence and the degree of criminal culpability of the defendant?
  3. 3 Should additional orders such as payment to the Environmental Trust and a publication order be made?

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was one of strict liability under s 64 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Although actual environmental harm occurred, it was limited in duration and scale, and resulted from actions of a specialist contractor rather than the Defendant. The Court found the objective seriousness at the low end of the spectrum, as the Defendant had reasonable systems in place and its culpability was minor. Accordingly, a fine of $50,000 was imposed, with additional orders for payment of legal and investigative costs and the fine to be paid to the Environmental Trust. A publication order was refused as it would not serve a proper deterrent or denunciatory function given the...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted; fined; payment to Environmental Trust ordered; costs to prosecutor; publication order refused.

Orders

  • The Defendant is convicted as charged.
  • The Defendant is fined the sum of $50,000.