Environment Protection Authority v Sell and Parker Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 64

Environment Protection Authority v Sell and Parker Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 64

The offence was reasonably serious because the Defendant breached licence condition L8.1 by an explosion measured at 133.4dB, causing short term amenity harm to employees and some potential for health harm, and because greater practical measures could have been taken before the explosion. However it was less serious than the earlier offence, no safety harm was proved, the Defendant had taken and was continuing to take significant steps to reduce explosions, specific deterrence was not necessary in light of those measures, and the totality principle did not apply because the offences were four months apart and different in character. A penalty of $12,000, being 20 percent of the maximum,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offence Against S 64(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 for Breach of Environment Protection Licence Condition L8.1 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
The Defendant was convicted and fined $8,400, and ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs of $6,000.
Legal Topics
['breach of Environment Protection Licence Condition' 'airblast Overpressure' 'noise' 'sentencing for Environmental Offence' 'mitigating Factors']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['breach of Environment Protection Licence Condition' 'airblast Overpressure' 'noise' 'sentencing for Environmental Offence' 'mitigating Factors']

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 Offence Against S 64(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 for Breach of Environment Protection Licence Condition L8.1 / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalty should be imposed for the Defendant's breach of licence condition L8.1 by exceeding the permitted airblast overpressure level at the boundary of the premises." 'The extent of environmental harm caused or likely to be caused by the explosion.' 'The practical measures available and taken to prevent, control, abate or mitigate harm from explosions.' 'The relevance of foreseeability, control, general deterrence, specific deterrence, totality, evenhandedness and mitigating factors to sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was reasonably serious because the Defendant breached licence condition L8.1 by an explosion measured at 133.4dB, causing short term amenity harm to employees and some potential for health harm, and because greater practical measures could have been taken before the explosion. However it was less serious than the earlier offence, no safety harm was proved, the Defendant had taken and was continuing to take significant steps to reduce explosions, specific deterrence was not necessary in light of those measures, and the totality principle did not apply because the offences were four months apart and different in character. A penalty of $12,000, being 20 percent of the maximum,...

Court Disposition

The Defendant was convicted and fined $8,400, and ordered to pay the Prosecutor's costs of $6,000.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the offence with which it is charged.' "The Defendant is fined the sum of $8,400 to be paid to the Registrar of the Court within 28 days of today's date." "The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor's costs of the proceedings of $6,000." 'The exhibits may be returned.']