Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes [2020] NSWLEC 37

Environment Protection Authority v Warwick Ronald McInnes [2020] NSWLEC 37

The defendant 'used' the pesticide within the meaning of the Act by storing it in the Disabled Toilet for longer than a nominal period, regardless of intent for future use, and this storage was sufficient for liability under s 10(1)(a) because injury occurred. However, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen the risk of access to the facility on the relevant date, so criminal negligence was not made out under s 7(1)(a).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Trial and Conviction
Outcome
Convicted on s 10(1)(a) charge; not guilty on criminal negligence charge.
Legal Topics
['pesticide Offences' 'storage of Hazardous Materials' 'criminal Negligence' 'statutory Interpretation']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Law'] ['pesticide Offences' 'storage of Hazardous Materials' 'criminal Negligence' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Trial and Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant 'stored' the pesticide and thereby 'used' it under s 4 definition in the Pesticides Act 1999 for the purposes of ss 7 and 10." "Whether 'store' requires an intention for future use under the Act." "Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to criminal negligence under s 7(1)(a) of the Pesticides Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant 'used' the pesticide within the meaning of the Act by storing it in the Disabled Toilet for longer than a nominal period, regardless of intent for future use, and this storage was sufficient for liability under s 10(1)(a) because injury occurred. However, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen the risk of access to the facility on the relevant date, so criminal negligence was not made out under s 7(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Convicted on s 10(1)(a) charge; not guilty on criminal negligence charge.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the Charge that on or about 10 August 2017 he committed an offence against s 10(1)(a) of the Pesticides Act 1999 in that he used a pesticide in a manner that injured another person.' 'The proceedings be listed for mention before the List Judge on Friday, 8 May 2020 to fix the matter...