Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 2

Environment Protection Authority v Sydney Water (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 2

Sydney Water's conviction for polluting waters by the overflow of untreated sewage from a pumping station, while not at the most serious end, added a significant volume of effluent to an already impacted creek and justified a penalty towards the lower end of the low range. Objective seriousness was tempered by mitigating steps taken and the necessity to address a larger simultaneous environmental incident, but additional harm, foreseeability, and a history of similar offences warranted a substantial penalty, contribution to a local environmental project, publication and apology orders, payment of investigative and prosecution costs, and partial diversion of the penalty to fund regulatory...

Parties
Prosecutor: Environment Protection Authority; Defendant: Sydney Water Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Prosecution (class 5) / Sentence After Conviction Following Contested Trial
Outcome
Sydney Water convicted; sentenced to monetary penalty and consequential orders
Legal Topics
Water Pollution, Sentencing, Penalties Under POEO Act, Prosecution of Statutory Corporations, Environmental Harm Assessment
Environmental Law Criminal Law Water Pollution Sentencing Penalties Under POEO Act Prosecution of Statutory Corporations Environmental Harm Assessment

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 5 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Environment Protection Authority

Prosecutor

Sydney Water Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Environmental Prosecution (class 5) / Sentence After Conviction Following Contested Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for Sydney Water's conviction of water pollution contrary to s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997?
  2. 2 What is the extent of environmental harm caused by the overflow of untreated sewage from the pumping station?
  3. 3 Should the existence of prior convictions aggravate penalty?

Ratio Decidendi

Sydney Water's conviction for polluting waters by the overflow of untreated sewage from a pumping station, while not at the most serious end, added a significant volume of effluent to an already impacted creek and justified a penalty towards the lower end of the low range. Objective seriousness was tempered by mitigating steps taken and the necessity to address a larger simultaneous environmental incident, but additional harm, foreseeability, and a history of similar offences warranted a substantial penalty, contribution to a local environmental project, publication and apology orders, payment of investigative and prosecution costs, and partial diversion of the penalty to fund regulatory...

Court Disposition

Sydney Water convicted; sentenced to monetary penalty and consequential orders

Orders

  • Sydney Water to pay a total penalty of $200,000, comprised of a $155,000 fine and $45,000 contribution to Fairfield City Council for the Carramar Vegetated Swale Project under s 250(1)(e) POEO Act.
  • A moiety (50%) of the fine ($77,500) to be paid to the Prosecutor under s 122 of the Fines Act 1996.