Environment Protection Authority v Riverina Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCCA 165

Environment Protection Authority v Riverina Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCCA 165

The summons was bad for duplicity because paragraph 1(c)(i), relying on s 257 and not confined to the particular acts alleged in paragraphs 1(c)(ii) and (iii), was capable of encompassing other unspecified acts of pollution at or from Riverina's premises, thereby charging more than one offence in one count. Section 257 is an evidentiary provision that may attribute causation to an occupier once a particularised act of pollution is proved, but it does not relieve the prosecutor from providing the essential factual particulars of the act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation of the s 120(1) charge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Questions of Law Referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Class 5 Land and Environment Court Proceedings for Prosecution of an Alleged Offence Against S 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Reference Under S 5 AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912; Land and Environment Court Proceedings Stayed Pending Determination
Outcome
The questions referred were answered in favour of the respondent; the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['duplicity' 'criminal Pleading' 'particulars of Charge' 'water Pollution' 'protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'statutory Construction' 'evidentiary Provisions' 'occupier Liability']
['criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['duplicity' 'criminal Pleading' 'particulars of Charge' 'water Pollution' 'protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'statutory Construction' 'evidentiary Provisions' 'occupier Liability']

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

Questions of Law Referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Class 5 Land and Environment Court Proceedings for Prosecution of an Alleged Offence Against S 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Reference Under S 5 AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912; Land and Environment Court Proceedings Stayed Pending Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Land and Environment Court erred in finding that the summons filed on 17 April 2014 was bad for duplicity because more than one offence had been charged in one count of contravention of s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.' 'Whether, on its proper construction, s 257 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 obviates the need for the prosecutor to provide the defendant with the essential details of the particular act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation of the manner of contravention of s 120(1) contained in paragraph 1(c)(i) of the summons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was bad for duplicity because paragraph 1(c)(i), relying on s 257 and not confined to the particular acts alleged in paragraphs 1(c)(ii) and (iii), was capable of encompassing other unspecified acts of pollution at or from Riverina's premises, thereby charging more than one offence in one count. Section 257 is an evidentiary provision that may attribute causation to an occupier once a particularised act of pollution is proved, but it does not relieve the prosecutor from providing the essential factual particulars of the act, matter or thing alleged as the foundation of the s 120(1) charge.

Court Disposition

The questions referred were answered in favour of the respondent; the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Question 1 answered: "No".' 'Question 2 answered: "No".' 'In relation to any ancillary or consequential matters, including costs, the parties are directed to file and serve written submissions within 28 days from the date of judgment, in accordance with an agreed timetable.']