Environment Protection Authority v Pancorp Australia Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 38

Environment Protection Authority v Pancorp Australia Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 38

Pancorp Australia Pty Limited is convicted of pollution of waters under s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 in each matter, as actual harm occurred due to negligent application of herbicides causing runoff into three separate dams. The offence is at the lower end of the scale with minimal lasting damage. Sentencing reflects the total criminality and mitigating circumstances, including cooperation and early guilty plea.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Final Judgment
Outcome
conviction and fine imposed
Legal Topics
['water Pollution' 'herbicide Application' 'vicarious Liability' 'mitigation of Harm' 'sentencing']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['water Pollution' 'herbicide Application' 'vicarious Liability' 'mitigation of Harm' 'sentencing']

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 Prosecution / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Pancorp Australia Pty Limited polluted waters contrary to s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'Assessment of harm and mitigation concerning pollution of waters' 'Application of sentencing principles for environmental offences']

Ratio Decidendi

Pancorp Australia Pty Limited is convicted of pollution of waters under s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 in each matter, as actual harm occurred due to negligent application of herbicides causing runoff into three separate dams. The offence is at the lower end of the scale with minimal lasting damage. Sentencing reflects the total criminality and mitigating circumstances, including cooperation and early guilty plea.

Court Disposition

conviction and fine imposed

Orders

  • ['In matter No 50108 of 2001, the defendant is convicted and fined $20,000.' 'In matter No 50106 of 2001, the defendant is convicted and fined $8,000.' 'In matter No 50107 of 2001, the defendant is convicted and fined $4,000.' 'Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the prosecutor in each matter in a sum to be...