Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Suva Rural Local Authority v Leylands Ltd

Country/Territory
Fiji
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jun 23, 1978
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court
Seat of court
Suva
Judge
R.G. KERMODE
Reference number
Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1978
Language
English
Subject
Waste & hazardous substances
Abstract

The case concerned an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the acquittal of the respondent, Leylands Ltd of an offence of the Public Health Ordinance.

The respondent had held 3000 pigs in a way contrary to the Public Health Ordinance, as there was a discharge of untreated waste into a creek. The Local Authority therefore issued a Notice that the holding of pigs was a nuisance that had to be abated. The work specified in the Notice had to be executed within 14 days. This also included submitting plans for the construction of an oxidation ditch. The respondent was charged with not having abated the nuisance within the time specified in the Notice.

The Court found several problematic issues in the case, for example it meant that the nature of the offence was not specified enough in the charge and that there was an incorrect statement in the Notice about the nuisance that should have been ignored. It was also the Court’s opinion that the time frame was unreasonably short, especially since the respondent was obliged to seek approval from the Authority before commencing any work.

The lower court held that the nuisance specified in the Notice was not established, as the incorrect statement was considered in the judgment. Therefore it acquitted the respondent.

The Supreme Court meant that the acquittal was correct, but that it was motivated in an incorrect way. In fact, the Court meant, the respondent should be acquitted because the Local Authority itself had prevented the respondent from carrying out the works specified in the Notice within the correct time with the terms of the Notice. The respondent could therefore not be held responsible for the failure to comply with the Notice.

 

Full text
Suva Rural Local Authority v Leylands Ltd.pdf