Environment Protection Authority V Shell Co. of Australia Ltd (No 1) [1999] NSWLEC 286

The charge under s 6(1), as particularised, is capable of amounting to a continuing offence and thus is not bad for duplicity. Accordingly, the defendant's Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Parties: Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: Shell Co. of Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 04 November 1999
Procedural Posture: Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion)
Outcome: Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics: Continuing Offences, Duplicity in Criminal Charges, Statutory Interpretation

Environmental Law Criminal Law Continuing Offences Duplicity in Criminal Charges Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

Shell Co. of Australia Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Interlocutory Application (notice of Motion)

Legal Issues

1 Whether s 6(1) of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989 can give rise to a continuing offence
2 Whether the charge as particularised is bad for duplicity

Ratio Decidendi

The charge under s 6(1), as particularised, is capable of amounting to a continuing offence and thus is not bad for duplicity. Accordingly, the defendant's Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

Defendant's Notice of Motion is dismissed in its entirety.