Environment Protection Authority v Brazel (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 26

Environment Protection Authority v Brazel (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 26

The court found that the offence of polluting waters was proved by a single act leading to multiple consequences, all arising from the placing of pesticide such that only one offence was committed under the expanded definition of water pollution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Post Findings, Prior to Sentence
Outcome
offence proved; sentencing hearing to be scheduled
Legal Topics
['water Pollution' 'duplicity' 'statutory Interpretation']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['water Pollution' 'duplicity' 'statutory Interpretation']

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 Prosecution / Post Findings, Prior to Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether different consequences of one act constitute more than one offence under water pollution statutes' 'Whether the summons is duplicitous']

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the offence of polluting waters was proved by a single act leading to multiple consequences, all arising from the placing of pesticide such that only one offence was committed under the expanded definition of water pollution.

Court Disposition

offence proved; sentencing hearing to be scheduled

Orders

  • ['Parties directed to approach the Registrar to obtain a further hearing date regarding sentence']