Environment Protection Authority v Rixa Quarries (No.2) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 48

Environment Protection Authority v Rixa Quarries (No.2) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLEC 48

The evidence, including the profit-a-prendre, interviews, affidavits, run sheets, notice responses and certificate evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant occupied the Premises, processed sand by land-based methods for sale in quantities exceeding 30,000 tonnes per year during the charge period, and did not hold an environment protection licence authorising that activity. The Defendant was therefore guilty of the offence charged under s 48(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Prosecution for an Offence Against S 48(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Ex Parte Hearing Conducted in the Defendant's Absence on the Basis of a Not Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant found guilty; sentencing hearing to be arranged.
Legal Topics
['scheduled Activity Without an Environment Protection Licence' 'land Based Extractive Activity' 'processing of Sand for Sale' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'proceeding in Absence of Defendant']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['scheduled Activity Without an Environment Protection Licence' 'land Based Extractive Activity' 'processing of Sand for Sale' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'proceeding in Absence of Defendant']

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

Class 5 Prosecution for an Offence Against S 48(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Ex Parte Hearing Conducted in the Defendant's Absence on the Basis of a Not Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendant was the occupier of the Premises during the charge period' 'Whether land-based extractive activities involving processing of extractive materials for sale or re-use by land-based methods were carried on at the Premises' 'Whether the activity involved processing of more than 30,000 tonnes per year of extractive materials' 'Whether the Defendant held an environment protection licence authorising the activity at the Premises during the charge period' 'Whether the Prosecutor proved each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including the profit-a-prendre, interviews, affidavits, run sheets, notice responses and certificate evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant occupied the Premises, processed sand by land-based methods for sale in quantities exceeding 30,000 tonnes per year during the charge period, and did not hold an environment protection licence authorising that activity. The Defendant was therefore guilty of the offence charged under s 48(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty; sentencing hearing to be arranged.

Orders

  • ['The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the offence as set out in the Summons.' 'Arrangements for a sentencing hearing will now need to be made.']