Environment Protection Authority v Terrace Earthmoving Pty Ltd & Page [2012] NSWLEC 216

Environment Protection Authority v Terrace Earthmoving Pty Ltd & Page [2012] NSWLEC 216

The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the materials transported by Terrace Earthmoving Pty Ltd (and thus by Geoffrey James Page as director) were 'waste' as defined under the relevant statutory provisions at the time of transportation. The materials were found, on objective evidence, to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Environmental Offences (criminal) / Post Trial Decision (verdict Reserved Pending Possible Question of Law to Court of Criminal Appeal)
Outcome
Proceedings stood over; unless prosecutor applies to state a question of law, verdicts of not guilty to be entered for all four charges.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Transport of Waste' 'definition of Waste Under Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'burden of Proof in Environmental Offences' 'offences by Directors Under Environmental Law']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['unlawful Transport of Waste' 'definition of Waste Under Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997' 'burden of Proof in Environmental Offences' 'offences by Directors Under Environmental Law']

Source-derived case record

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 Offences (criminal) / Post Trial Decision (verdict Reserved Pending Possible Question of Law to Court of Criminal Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether material transported by Terrace Earthmoving Pty Ltd to 168 Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown, was 'waste' within the meaning of s 143 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 during the relevant charge periods;" 'Whether Terrance Earthmoving Pty Ltd (and its director under s 169) transported waste to a place that could not lawfully be used as a waste facility for that waste;' 'Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the offences under s 143(1)(a) and s 169;' "On whom the onus of proof lies in respect of the 'lawful authority' element."]

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the materials transported by Terrace Earthmoving Pty Ltd (and thus by Geoffrey James Page as director) were 'waste' as defined under the relevant statutory provisions at the time of transportation. The materials were found, on objective evidence, to have value and were intended and promptly used for road construction. The circumstantial evidence regarding the presence of asbestos was insufficient to prove the defendants transported that material. As an essential element of the offences was not established, the charges are not made out.

Court Disposition

Proceedings stood over; unless prosecutor applies to state a question of law, verdicts of not guilty to be entered for all four charges.

Orders

  • ['All proceedings stood over to Friday 19 October 2012.' 'Unless by that date an application is made by the prosecutor to state a question of law for determination by the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s 5AE of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, verdicts of not guilty in all four matters will be entered on that day.']