Environment Protection Authority v Transfield Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 45

Environment Protection Authority v Transfield Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 45

The defendant was in absolute control of the premises after the expert subcontractor left, and the pollution risk was foreseeable to an experienced corporation. Although Transfield had taken many precautions, further precautions concerning site security, supervision and induction should have been taken. The offence was proven, s 10 relief was refused, and a monetary penalty was warranted notwithstanding the minor character of the breach, lack of actual environmental harm, early guilty plea, good environmental record, contrition and cooperation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Pollution of Waters Under S 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Plea of Guilty and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant convicted and fined $12,500; ordered to pay the Prosecutor's reasonable costs.
Legal Topics
['pollution of Waters' 'suspended Solids Discharge' 'environmental Offences' 'sentencing' 'conviction Without Further Penalty or Dismissal Under S 10']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['pollution of Waters' 'suspended Solids Discharge' 'environmental Offences' 'sentencing' 'conviction Without Further Penalty or Dismissal Under S 10']

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 Pollution of Waters Under S 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 / Plea of Guilty and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's discharge of liquid containing soil, earth, mud, sand, clay or suspended solids into Smalls Creek constituted a pollution of waters offence under s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997." 'Whether the court should decline to proceed to a conviction under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' "What monetary penalty and costs order should be imposed, having regard to s 241 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the defendant's plea, record, contrition and cooperation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was in absolute control of the premises after the expert subcontractor left, and the pollution risk was foreseeable to an experienced corporation. Although Transfield had taken many precautions, further precautions concerning site security, supervision and induction should have been taken. The offence was proven, s 10 relief was refused, and a monetary penalty was warranted notwithstanding the minor character of the breach, lack of actual environmental harm, early guilty plea, good environmental record, contrition and cooperation.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and fined $12,500; ordered to pay the Prosecutor's reasonable costs.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the charge in the summons.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay a fine of $12,500.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay the reasonable costs of the Prosecutor, to be agreed, or assessed according to law, within one month of such agreement or assessment.' 'Exhibits P1, P9 and P11 are to...