Environment Protection Authority v Ghossayn [2009] NSWLEC 181

Environment Protection Authority v Ghossayn [2009] NSWLEC 181

Despite guilty pleas and mitigating factors, the offences—breaching s 126 and s 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997—required significant fines due to the need for both specific and general deterrence, the defendant's high degree of control, his failure to prevent foreseeable environmental and regulatory harm, financial motivation, and the moderate seriousness of the offences when considering both environmental and regulatory impacts. Application of s 10 of the CSPA was inappropriate given the ongoing and non-trivial nature of the conduct.

Parties
Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: George Ghossayn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Conviction with fines and costs order
Legal Topics
Air Pollution, Waste Management Offences, Sentencing, Director Liability, Strict Liability Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Law Air Pollution Waste Management Offences Sentencing Director Liability Strict Liability Offences

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 8 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

George Ghossayn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate penalty for offences under ss 126 and 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997?
  2. 2 To what extent do the defendant's personal circumstances and the objective seriousness of the offences mitigate or aggravate sentencing?
  3. 3 Is s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (dismissal with no conviction) appropriate?

Ratio Decidendi

Despite guilty pleas and mitigating factors, the offences—breaching s 126 and s 144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997—required significant fines due to the need for both specific and general deterrence, the defendant's high degree of control, his failure to prevent foreseeable environmental and regulatory harm, financial motivation, and the moderate seriousness of the offences when considering both environmental and regulatory impacts. Application of s 10 of the CSPA was inappropriate given the ongoing and non-trivial nature of the conduct.

Court Disposition

Conviction with fines and costs order

Orders

  • Defendant convicted of both offences as charged.
  • Defendant fined a total of $51,000 for both offences (after reduction).