Harrison v Baring Pays/Territoire Australie Type de cour Autres Date Jui 27, 2012 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Juge Pain. Numéro de référence [2012] NSWLEC 145 Langue Anglais Sujet Questions juridiques, Eau Mot clé Infractions/sanctions Mise en application Approvisionnement en eau Prélèvement d'eau Responsabilité/indemnisation Résumé 1In Harrison v Baring [2012] NSWLEC 117 (Harrison (No 1)) I found Mr Baring, the Defendant, guilty of ten offences under s 341(1)(a) and s 343(1)(a1) of the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). The offences arose from taking water on four separate occasions from the Lachlan Regulated River Water Source (Lachlan River) in 2008, relating to the irrigation of a wheat and a canola crop. Four of the offences were of taking water from a water source otherwise than in accordance with the regulated river (general security) water access licence, contrary to s 341(1)(a) of the WM Act. Six offences were of using a water supply work, being a pump, to take water from a water source otherwise than in accordance with a water supply work approval that authorised the use of the work, contrary to s 343(1)(a1)(i). As the Defendant did not appear or enter a plea it was necessary for Mr Harrison, the Prosecutor on behalf of the NSW Office of Water, to prove the offences. I found that the Defendant, the sole director of Baring Park Pty Limited (BPPL), knowingly authorised or permitted the acts or omissions that constituted the ten offences. The Defendant was taken to have committed those offences by reason of s 363(1) of the WM Act. The present decision is to sentence the Defendant for the offences committed. When considering factors relevant to the sentencing of Mr Baring, the Court found that: the distribution of a vital public resource underpins the scheme for water licensing and access, hence the taking of the water constituted a breach of public trust; the State was precluded from effectively monitoring water taken, due to the broken meters; the circumstances of the offence were in the moderate to serious range; and in this circumstance, a general deterrent was a particularly important consideration in sentencing for the offences. The Court further commented that, during severe water shortages, most if not all licence holders are likely to experience significant reductions in their expected water allocations and most, if not all, farmers are likely to come under significant financial pressure because of lack of water. The present decision demonstrates the seriousness of non compliance with Water Access Licences and Water Supply Works approvals and indicates that directors of companies that breach these authorisations can personally face significant criminal penalties. Texte intégral COU-159832.pdf