MONOGRAPH 40 volume 1

51 Research monograph 40 2. Findings Case study 1 EPA v Gardner: “the most serious case of environmental crime” ( EPA v Gardner (unrep, 14/8/1997, NSWLEC); EPA v Gardner (unrep, 7/11/1997, NSWLEC) The offender owned and operated Karuah Jetty Village, a caravan and relocatable home park. For a period of almost two and a half years, from October 1993 to April 1996, the offender pumped effluent, including human faeces and urine generated by the Village, from a septic tank system into the Karuah River. The effluent pumped into the river averaged 128,710 litres per week. The effluent was pumped through a system of secret underground pipes and valves previously installed for the purpose. The system of piping and valves and the illegal pumping of effluent was concealed from others including the council authorities and the new owners of the Village. Furthermore, the offender denied using the system for the purpose of pumping effluent from the Village into the river. The illegal pumping of effluent saved the offender between $852 and $1,325 per week, which would otherwise have been incurred for the lawful removal of the effluent. The total savings in effluent removal costs over the period was over $138,000. The pumping of effluent to the river caused significant harm and degradation to the environment — changing the physical, chemical and biological condition of the waters of the river. The smells emanating from the discharge affected the human surroundings. The sediments near the outlet of the pipe were subject to viral contamination, which posed a grave health risk particularly given that active oyster leases were in the vicinity of the outlet pipe and these were exposed to the viruses contained in the sewage discharge through the river’s tidal movements. The effluent was pumped into the river wilfully. The offence was committed for financial gain (ie to save money). The offender designed, installed and operated the system of pumps, pipes and valves specifically to pump the effluent from the Village to the river. The offender went to great lengths to hide the effluent disposal system. The offender made numerous self-serving and deceptive statements to the residents of the Village, and to the court in evidence, as to the effluent pumping activities and the purpose which the system served.