Environment Protection Authority v Pasminco Broken Hill Mine Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 70

Environment Protection Authority v Pasminco Broken Hill Mine Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 70

The offences fell within the lower end of the overall spectrum of gravity for offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, s 64(1). The Prosecutor did not prove aggravating circumstances or likely future environmental harm beyond reasonable doubt, but Condition M7.1 imposed a substantive monitoring obligation rather than a merely administrative obligation. The Defendant's culpability for the Westside Drive monitor was mitigated by its reasonably founded belief that the EPA accepted the monitoring arrangements, but its culpability for the Rainbow Avenue monitor was significant because the failure was within its control and reflected at least negligence. After...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Environmental Offences Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, S 64(1) / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to Two Charges Heard Together by Consent
Outcome
Defendant convicted on each offence; penalties imposed; Defendant ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs.
Legal Topics
['environment Protection Licence Conditions' 'ground Vibration Monitoring From Mine Blasting' 'noise Related Environmental Offences' 'mitigation and Aggravation in Sentencing']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['environment Protection Licence Conditions' 'ground Vibration Monitoring From Mine Blasting' 'noise Related Environmental Offences' 'mitigation and Aggravation in 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

Prosecution for Environmental Offences Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, S 64(1) / Sentencing After Guilty Pleas to Two Charges Heard Together by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed for two admitted contraventions of Condition M7.1 of Environment Protection Licence No 2688 requiring continuous monitoring of ground level vibration caused by blasting operations.' 'Whether the offences were committed in aggravating circumstances because the blasting event was a very large blast and not all monitors were operational.' 'Whether the failure to monitor caused or was likely to cause environmental harm for the purposes of sentencing under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, s 241.' 'What mitigating factors should reduce the penalties imposed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences fell within the lower end of the overall spectrum of gravity for offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, s 64(1). The Prosecutor did not prove aggravating circumstances or likely future environmental harm beyond reasonable doubt, but Condition M7.1 imposed a substantive monitoring obligation rather than a merely administrative obligation. The Defendant's culpability for the Westside Drive monitor was mitigated by its reasonably founded belief that the EPA accepted the monitoring arrangements, but its culpability for the Rainbow Avenue monitor was significant because the failure was within its control and reflected at least negligence. After...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted on each offence; penalties imposed; Defendant ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of each offence as charged.' 'In respect of proceedings No 50084 of 2001 a penalty of $3,600 is imposed in respect of the conviction.' 'In respect of proceedings No 50085 of 2001 a penalty of $7,200 is imposed in respect of the conviction.' "The Defendant shall pay the Prosecutor's costs...