Environment Protection Authority v Attard [2000] NSWCCA 242

Environment Protection Authority v Attard [2000] NSWCCA 242

The sentencing judge failed to have regard, or sufficient regard, to the respondent's obligation to keep a close watch on the dam to ensure contaminated water was not escaping, particularly in light of two previous penalty notices, one concerning a leak in the dam. The offences warranted a pecuniary penalty and the s556A disposition was manifestly too lenient, so the sentences were set aside and fines substituted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Sentence Under S5 D(1 A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentence Pronounced by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal upheld; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to fines totalling $3,000; order for costs below preserved.
Legal Topics
['water Pollution' 'environmental Offences' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'no Conviction Order Under S556 A' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'prosecution Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'sentencing'] ['water Pollution' 'environmental Offences' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'no Conviction Order Under S556 A' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'prosecution Appeal Against Sentence']

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

Appeal Against Sentence Under S5 D(1 A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentence Pronounced by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for two environmental offences was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the respondent should have received a pecuniary penalty rather than an order that no conviction be recorded under s556A of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'What sentence should be substituted on appeal, having regard to double jeopardy and totality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge failed to have regard, or sufficient regard, to the respondent's obligation to keep a close watch on the dam to ensure contaminated water was not escaping, particularly in light of two previous penalty notices, one concerning a leak in the dam. The offences warranted a pecuniary penalty and the s556A disposition was manifestly too lenient, so the sentences were set aside and fines substituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to fines totalling $3,000; order for costs below preserved.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Sentence quashed.' 'In relation to the offence committed 28 April 1998, substitute a fine of $2,000.' 'In relation to the offence committed 29 April 1998, substitute a fine of $1,000.' 'The order for costs below is preserved.']