Blacktown City Council v Pace & Anor [2002] NSWLEC 142

Blacktown City Council v Pace & Anor [2002] NSWLEC 142

The Prosecutor proved that Francis George Pace was the owner of the land, that part of the land was used for storage of waste and therefore as a waste facility, and that the Defendant did not prove lawful use. However, the Prosecutor failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Francis George Pace knew of, intentionally allowed, or recklessly shut his eyes to the use of the rear of the land as a waste facility during the charged period. The element of permitting was not proved, so the charge failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Proceedings; Prosecution for an Offence Against S 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (nsw) / Judgment After Hearing on Affidavit Evidence and Not Guilty Plea
Outcome
Summons against Joseph Pace dismissed at the conclusion of the hearing; summons against Francis George Pace dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['use of Land as a Waste Facility' 'meaning of "permits" in S 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'burden of Proving Land Can Lawfully Be Used as a Waste Facility' 'business Records and Unreliable Hearsay Evidence']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['use of Land as a Waste Facility' 'meaning of "permits" in S 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'burden of Proving Land Can Lawfully Be Used as a Waste Facility' 'business Records and Unreliable Hearsay Evidence']

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 Proceedings; Prosecution for an Offence Against S 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (nsw) / Judgment After Hearing on Affidavit Evidence and Not Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Francis George Pace was the owner of 687 Richmond Road, Dean Park during the charged period.' 'Whether the land was used as a waste facility within the meaning of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.' 'Whether the land could lawfully be used as a waste facility.' 'Whether Francis George Pace permitted the land to be used as a waste facility between 24 July 2000 and 29 July 2000.' 'Whether the Prosecutor proved each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Prosecutor proved that Francis George Pace was the owner of the land, that part of the land was used for storage of waste and therefore as a waste facility, and that the Defendant did not prove lawful use. However, the Prosecutor failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Francis George Pace knew of, intentionally allowed, or recklessly shut his eyes to the use of the rear of the land as a waste facility during the charged period. The element of permitting was not proved, so the charge failed.

Court Disposition

Summons against Joseph Pace dismissed at the conclusion of the hearing; summons against Francis George Pace dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The summons against Francis George Pace is dismissed.' 'The question of costs be reserved.' 'The exhibits be returned.']