Environment Protection Authority v Illawarra Coke Company Pty Limited [2005] NSWLEC 296
Given the guilty plea, cooperation with the EPA, steps taken to prevent recurrence, evidence of prior environmental commitment, and the nature and extent of the harm which was primarily short term, a reduced penalty reflecting these mitigating factors is appropriate.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
- Outcome
- convicted
- Legal Topics
- ['pollution of Waters' 'environmental Offences' 'penalty Assessment' 'mitigating Factors' 'deterrence' 'remediation Works']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 ['extent of environmental harm caused' 'preventive and mitigating measures taken by the defendant' 'foreseeability and control over the cause of pollution' 'appropriate penalty for pollution offence' 'application of deterrence and even-handedness in sentencing']
Ratio Decidendi
Given the guilty plea, cooperation with the EPA, steps taken to prevent recurrence, evidence of prior environmental commitment, and the nature and extent of the harm which was primarily short term, a reduced penalty reflecting these mitigating factors is appropriate.
Court Disposition
convicted
Orders
- ['Defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'Defendant must pay a penalty of $40,000.' "Defendant must pay the prosecutor's costs of $20,000." 'Exhibits may be returned.']
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