Environment Protection Authority -V- Sydney Water Corporation Ltd [1999] NSWLEC 60

Environment Protection Authority -V- Sydney Water Corporation Ltd [1999] NSWLEC 60

The defendant's failure to maintain the penstock controls so that they operated efficiently under emergency power was a serious breach of an essential part of the sewage treatment plant. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, if the outlet penstocks had operated when the staff member first tried to open them, there would have been a discharge to the cliff face with a reasonable chance of averting inundation, and at least the level of flooding and duration of recovery would have been reduced. The resulting discharge caused widespread and serious environmental harm, was foreseeable, and practical preventative measures were available and within the defendant's control. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Environmental Offence / Reasons for Judgment on Penalty and Costs After Finding of Guilt
Outcome
Defendant convicted, fined $100,000, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.
Legal Topics
['pollution Offence' 'licence Condition Breach' 'penalty' 'environmental Harm' 'costs Following the Event']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law' 'costs'] ['pollution Offence' 'licence Condition Breach' 'penalty' 'environmental Harm' 'costs Following the Event']

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 Environmental Offence / Reasons for Judgment on Penalty and Costs After Finding of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the charge should be dismissed without punishment under s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 because the offence was trivial or punishment was inexpedient.' 'Whether environmental harm was caused or likely to be caused by the commission of the offence for the purposes of s 9(a) of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.' 'What practical measures were available to prevent, control, abate or mitigate the harm for the purposes of s 9(b) of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.' 'Whether the defendant could reasonably have foreseen the harm caused to the environment for the purposes of s 9(c) of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989.' 'What penalty should be imposed for the offence.' "Whether the defendant should pay the prosecutor's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's failure to maintain the penstock controls so that they operated efficiently under emergency power was a serious breach of an essential part of the sewage treatment plant. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, if the outlet penstocks had operated when the staff member first tried to open them, there would have been a discharge to the cliff face with a reasonable chance of averting inundation, and at least the level of flooding and duration of recovery would have been reduced. The resulting discharge caused widespread and serious environmental harm, was foreseeable, and practical preventative measures were available and within the defendant's control. The...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted, fined $100,000, and ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence as charged in the summons.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $100,000.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the prosecutor in such amount as may be agreed or if no such agreement can be reached in accordance with the regulations under the...