Environment Protection Authority v Borg Panels Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 71

Environment Protection Authority v Borg Panels Pty Ltd [2016] NSWLEC 71

The Defendant was convicted and fined because its employee's careless placement of a hose caused effluent from the Sludge Dam to pollute the Drainage Channel, the Tributary and Kings Stockyard Creek, in breach of s 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). Although not intentional or for financial gain, the offence was of low to moderate objective seriousness because significant short-term environmental harm occurred, harm was reasonably foreseeable, the Defendant had complete control over the causes, and straightforward preventive procedures and controls were available. Mitigating factors, including the earliest guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, no prior...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Prosecution for Polluting Waters in Breach of S 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (nsw) / Sentence After Plea of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant convicted, fined, ordered to pay costs and investigation costs, and made subject to a publication order.
Legal Topics
['pollution of Waters' 'corporate Environmental Offending' 'objective Seriousness' 'environmental Harm' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'publication Order' 'investigation Costs']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['pollution of Waters' 'corporate Environmental Offending' 'objective Seriousness' 'environmental Harm' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'publication Order' 'investigation Costs']

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

Class 5 Prosecution for Polluting Waters in Breach of S 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (nsw) / Sentence After Plea of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed on the Defendant for polluting waters in breach of s 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).' 'The objective seriousness of the offence, including the extent of actual, likely and potential environmental harm, practical preventive measures, foreseeability and control.' "The mitigating effect of the Defendant's early guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, lack of prior convictions, good corporate character and remedial measures." 'Whether a publication order and orders for investigative and professional costs should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was convicted and fined because its employee's careless placement of a hose caused effluent from the Sludge Dam to pollute the Drainage Channel, the Tributary and Kings Stockyard Creek, in breach of s 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW). Although not intentional or for financial gain, the offence was of low to moderate objective seriousness because significant short-term environmental harm occurred, harm was reasonably foreseeable, the Defendant had complete control over the causes, and straightforward preventive procedures and controls were available. Mitigating factors, including the earliest guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, no prior...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted, fined, ordered to pay costs and investigation costs, and made subject to a publication order.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the breach of s 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act for polluting waters as set out in the summons filed 29 July 2015.' 'The Defendant is fined $58,500.' "The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor's costs of $45,000." "The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor's...