Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 51

Environment Protection Authority v Pullinger (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 51

Direction 7 of the varied clean-up notice was valid and sufficiently connected with the pollution incident on the premises. The EPA was the appropriate regulatory authority by operation of ss 212C and 212D of the POEO Act. The EPA/Minister had reasonable suspicion and formed requisite opinions for the issuance of both the clean-up and prohibition notices. The defendant failed to comply with directions 7 and 10 of the varied clean-up notice and the prohibition notice and did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance, whether for technical or financial reasons. Accordingly, the defendant was found guilty on all three charges.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Post Verdict, Pre Sentencing
Outcome
The defendant, Robert Lenard Pullinger, is found guilty of the offences charged under s 91(5) (twice) and s 102 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['offences—failure to Comply With Environmental Notices' 'reasonable Excuse Defence' 'validity of Clean Up and Prohibition Notices' 'jurisdiction of Regulatory Authorities' 'construction of Statutory Environmental Powers']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['offences—failure to Comply With Environmental Notices' 'reasonable Excuse Defence' 'validity of Clean Up and Prohibition Notices' 'jurisdiction of Regulatory Authorities' 'construction of Statutory Environmental Powers']

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 / Post Verdict, Pre Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether direction 7 of the varied clean-up notice was valid under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (POEO Act)' 'Whether the giving of the prohibition notice was warranted within the meaning of s 101 of the POEO Act' 'Whether the defendant complied with the prohibition notice' 'Whether the defendant had a reasonable excuse for not complying with directions 7 and 10 of the varied clean-up notice and with the prohibition notice']

Ratio Decidendi

Direction 7 of the varied clean-up notice was valid and sufficiently connected with the pollution incident on the premises. The EPA was the appropriate regulatory authority by operation of ss 212C and 212D of the POEO Act. The EPA/Minister had reasonable suspicion and formed requisite opinions for the issuance of both the clean-up and prohibition notices. The defendant failed to comply with directions 7 and 10 of the varied clean-up notice and the prohibition notice and did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance, whether for technical or financial reasons. Accordingly, the defendant was found guilty on all three charges.

Court Disposition

The defendant, Robert Lenard Pullinger, is found guilty of the offences charged under s 91(5) (twice) and s 102 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['In proceeding 2020/327089, Robert Lenard Pullinger is guilty of the offence against s 91(5) of the POEO Act for not complying with direction 7 of the varied clean-up notice given 18 May 2018. Proceedings are listed before the list judge for sentence.' 'In proceeding 2020/327090, Robert Lenard Pullinger is guilty...