Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 150

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 150

PROSECUTOR Environment Protection Authority PARTIES : DEFENDANT Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S) : 50069 of 2009

CORAM: Sheahan J

KEY ISSUES: PROSECUTION :- defendant's solicitors removed by defendant, defendant unrepresented, no appearance by defendant, plea of Not Guilty, application for adjournment by defendant in writing, application by prosecutor to proceed ex parte, charge of polluting waters, effluent from abattoir, effluent escaping from bunded area into nearby creek

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 LEGISLATION CITED: Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 1998

DATES OF HEARING: 9 and 10 August 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 10 August 2010

PROSECUTOR Mr D K Jordan SOLICITORS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Deparment of Environment Climate Change and Water

DEFENDANT No appearance

JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Sheahan J

10 August 2010

50069 of 2009 Environment Protection Authority v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT Introduction 1 His Honour: By summons dated 12 November 2009 the EPA alleges that between about 3 and 4 December 2008 inclusive, at or near South Grafton, the defendant company committed an offence against s 120(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ('POEO Act') in that it caused or permitted to discharge into the waters of Musk Valley Creek, effluent from an abattoir containing the following: (a) animal matter of any description and/or (b) excreta, manure or urine and/or (c) oil or grease of any description and/or (d) matter that causes biochemical or chemical oxygen demand 2 Under Item 1 of Schedule 3 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 1998, as in force at that time, "animal matter of any description" is "prescribed matter" for the purpose of the offence. 3 The particulars of the breach describe the placing of the pollutant into a bund unsuitable for holding it, and/or failing to prevent the pollutant from escaping from the bund, as a result of which the pollutant was placed in, or introduced into, or on, the waters of the creek system, and/or was placed in a position where it fell, descended or was washed into those waters. In the alternative, or additionally, the company is charged with being the occupier of premises at or from which pollution occurred. 4 In submissions on the question of guilt the prosecutor has relied on the following elements of the POEO Act dictionary definition, under which "water pollution"/"pollution of waters" means: "(a) placing in or on, or otherwise introducing into or onto, waters (whether through an act or omission) any matter, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, so that the physical, chemical or biological condition of the waters is changed, or … (c) placing in or on, or otherwise introducing into or onto, the waters (whether through an act or omission) any matter, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, that is of a prescribed nature, description or class or that does not comply with any standard prescribed in respect of that matter, and, without affecting the generality of the foregoing, includes: (d) placing any matter (whether solid, liquid or gaseous) in a position where: (i) it falls, descends, is washed, is blown or percolates, or (ii) it is likely to fall, descend, be washed, be blown or percolate,