Environment Protection Authority v BMG Environmental Group Pty Ltd & Barnes [2012] NSWLEC 69

Environment Protection Authority v BMG Environmental Group Pty Ltd & Barnes [2012] NSWLEC 69

Given the moderate objective seriousness of the offending, the absence of prior similar convictions, the substantial financial benefit obtained, the actual and likely (though not substantial) environmental harm, and considering the utilitarian value of the very late guilty pleas, a conviction was warranted with each offender fined $100,000 and ordered to jointly and severally pay the prosecutor's costs and investigation expenses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Offence / Sentence
Outcome
Each defendant convicted of the offence against s 115(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as charged; fined $100,000; jointly and severally liable to pay prosecutor's legal costs of $143,631 and investigation costs of $31,369.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'offences by Corporations' 'disposal of Waste' 'harm to Environment' 'costs Orders']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'offences by Corporations' 'disposal of Waste' 'harm to Environment' 'costs Orders']

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

Criminal Environmental Offence / Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the appropriate sentence for negligently disposing of untreated sewage, septic tank waste and untreated grease trap waste in a manner that harmed or was likely to harm the environment, contrary to s 115(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997?' 'What are the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to sentencing in these environmental offences?']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the moderate objective seriousness of the offending, the absence of prior similar convictions, the substantial financial benefit obtained, the actual and likely (though not substantial) environmental harm, and considering the utilitarian value of the very late guilty pleas, a conviction was warranted with each offender fined $100,000 and ordered to jointly and severally pay the prosecutor's costs and investigation expenses.

Court Disposition

Each defendant convicted of the offence against s 115(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as charged; fined $100,000; jointly and severally liable to pay prosecutor's legal costs of $143,631 and investigation costs of $31,369.

Orders

  • ['Each defendant convicted of the offence against s 115(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 as charged.' 'Each defendant fined $100,000.' "Each defendant to pay to the registrar for the prosecutor the prosecutor's legal costs in the sum of $143,631, subject to joint and several liability."...