EPA v Gilmour & Anor [No.6] [2001] NSWLEC 257
Despite the low degree of proven environmental harm and evidence of mitigation steps having been taken, the nature of the offence required the imposition of penalties to address the risk of environmental harm from aerial agricultural operations. Neither defendant was entitled to the benefit of s 10 in these circumstances.
- Parties
- Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: Glenn Rex Gilmour; Defendant: Tableland Topdressing Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing and Orders
- Outcome
- defendant convicted and fined
- Legal Topics
- Pollution of Waters, Aerial Agriculture, Conviction, Environmental Harm, Mitigation, Penalty, Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Environment Protection Authority
Prosecutor
Glenn Rex Gilmour
Defendant
Tableland Topdressing Pty Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing and Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 What penalty should be imposed for the proven environmental offence under the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989?
Ratio Decidendi
Despite the low degree of proven environmental harm and evidence of mitigation steps having been taken, the nature of the offence required the imposition of penalties to address the risk of environmental harm from aerial agricultural operations. Neither defendant was entitled to the benefit of s 10 in these circumstances.
Court Disposition
defendant convicted and fined
Orders
- The defendant is convicted of the offence charged in the summons.
- The defendant is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $6,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment