Environment Protection Authority v Ross [2009] NSWLEC 36

Environment Protection Authority v Ross [2009] NSWLEC 36

A fine of $18,000 was imposed (with associated costs and an order under s 250(1)(b) POEO Act) as the offence involved serious environmental harm to an aquatic ecosystem due to the defendant's inadequate risk assessment, despite some precautionary steps. While the defendant acted without intent and with remorse and has an exemplary record, the seriousness of the harm, the foreseeability, and availability of preventative measures required a substantial penalty both for general deterrence and to uphold the purpose of the relevant environmental legislation. Orders requiring notification to professional and regulatory bodies are appropriate in addition to, but not as a substitute for, a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing
Outcome
Conviction and sentencing—fine and orders issued
Legal Topics
['water Pollution' 'sentencing' 'environmental Harm Mitigation' 'strict Liability Offences' 'sentencing Principles' 'orders in Addition to Penalty']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['water Pollution' 'sentencing' 'environmental Harm Mitigation' 'strict Liability Offences' 'sentencing Principles' 'orders in Addition to Penalty']

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

Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's risk assessment and preventative measures in using pesticide were adequate under s 120 POEO Act" 'Consideration of mitigating factors and means to pay penalty and costs' 'Whether s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 order is appropriate' 'Whether an order other than a penalty is appropriate under POEO Act s 250']

Ratio Decidendi

A fine of $18,000 was imposed (with associated costs and an order under s 250(1)(b) POEO Act) as the offence involved serious environmental harm to an aquatic ecosystem due to the defendant's inadequate risk assessment, despite some precautionary steps. While the defendant acted without intent and with remorse and has an exemplary record, the seriousness of the harm, the foreseeability, and availability of preventative measures required a substantial penalty both for general deterrence and to uphold the purpose of the relevant environmental legislation. Orders requiring notification to professional and regulatory bodies are appropriate in addition to, but not as a substitute for, a...

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentencing—fine and orders issued

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence under s 120 POEO Act.' 'The defendant is fined $18,000 to be paid within 28 days.' "The defendant must pay the Prosecutor's costs of $23,000." "The defendant must pay the Prosecutor's investigative costs of $12,000 pursuant to s 248 POEO Act." 'Pursuant to s 250(1)(b) POEO...