Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152

Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 152

Leave was granted only for the Upstream Contention because there was expert evidence capable of supporting it, the evidence had not been received by the defendant until after the statement of agreed facts was filed, and it had been served before the hearing. Leave was refused for the Downstream Contention and Consequential Health Contention because no notice was given until the third day of the sentencing hearing, the expert evidence before the Court did not support the Downstream Contention, and the prejudice to the prosecution was greater, especially cumulatively with the prejudice arising from the Upstream Contention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Pollution Offences / Application by Defendant During Sentencing Hearing for Leave to Contradict or Qualify Previously Agreed Facts
Outcome
Leave granted to contradict or qualify the agreed facts only as to the Upstream Contention; leave refused as to the Downstream Contention and Consequential Health Contention; after reasons were delivered the defendant abandoned the Upstream Contention.
Legal Topics
['pollution of Waters' 'failure to Notify Pollution Incident' 'agreed Facts' 'sentencing' 'leave to Contradict or Qualify Agreed Facts']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['pollution of Waters' 'failure to Notify Pollution Incident' 'agreed Facts' 'sentencing' 'leave to Contradict or Qualify Agreed Facts']

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 Pollution Offences / Application by Defendant During Sentencing Hearing for Leave to Contradict or Qualify Previously Agreed Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be given leave during a sentencing hearing to contradict or qualify facts agreed in the statement of agreed facts.' 'Whether leave should be granted for the contention that effluent from the cracked pipe did not travel east to the creek.' 'Whether leave should be granted for the contentions that downstream pollution did not travel as far as agreed and that any health risk was geographically limited.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted only for the Upstream Contention because there was expert evidence capable of supporting it, the evidence had not been received by the defendant until after the statement of agreed facts was filed, and it had been served before the hearing. Leave was refused for the Downstream Contention and Consequential Health Contention because no notice was given until the third day of the sentencing hearing, the expert evidence before the Court did not support the Downstream Contention, and the prejudice to the prosecution was greater, especially cumulatively with the prejudice arising from the Upstream Contention.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to contradict or qualify the agreed facts only as to the Upstream Contention; leave refused as to the Downstream Contention and Consequential Health Contention; after reasons were delivered the defendant abandoned the Upstream Contention.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is given leave to contradict or qualify the statement of agreed facts by contending that the effluent from the cracked pipe did not travel east to the creek.' "The defendant is ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs occasioned by this leave and the prosecutor's costs occasioned by any consequential...