EPA v Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Limited [2005] NSWLEC 206

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : EPA v Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Limited [2005] NSWLEC 206

PROSECUTOR Environment Protection Authority PARTIES : DEFENDANT Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S) : 50003 of 2003

CORAM: Talbot J

KEY ISSUES: Prosecution :- penalty in response to joint submission by prosecutor and defendant - effect of environmental service order.

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21A LEGISLATION CITED: Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 120(1), s 241, s 250, s 250(1)(c), s 251.

DATES OF HEARING: 26/04/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 04/26/2005

PROSECUTOR Mr T G Howard (Barrister) SOLICITORS Environment Protection Authority LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

DEFENDANT Mr C J Leggat (Barrister) SOLICITORS Shaw Reynolds Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Talbot J

26 April 2005

50003 of 2003 EPA v Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Limited

JUDGMENT 1 Talbot J: Goulburn Wool Scour Pty Limited ("the defendant") is charged that on 5 February 2002 it committed an offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ("the PEO Act") in that it polluted waters known as Kangaroo Ponds and downstream thereof. Following a contested hearing in August 2003 I delivered judgment on 9 September 2003. The prosecutor requested that I state a case for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Ultimately, in accordance with directions given by the Court of Appeal, a stated case was settled and referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal. 2 The findings made by the Court of Criminal Appeal necessitated the matter coming back to this Court to be finally determined. Essentially the Court of Criminal Appeal found that notwithstanding the defendant's belief to the contrary, it was not permitted under its licence to allow runoff from its property to waters as a release of the first flush of rainfall.