MONOGRAPH 40 volume 1

71 Research monograph 40 2. Findings 2.3 The nature of environmental offending 2.3.1 Environmental protection offences 2.3.1.1 Objective factors Objective seriousness Between 2000 and 2015, there were 374 principal offences against environmental protection laws dealt with by the LEC. Environmental protection offences outnumber environmental planning offences by around three to one. 414 Table 10 shows that only 38 of 374 principal offences involving environmental protection, or just over 10% of cases in the study period, were judged as having high objective seriousness. 415 A higher proportion of environmental protection offences committed by “special liability” offenders were of high objective gravity (25%), compared to “ordinary Joe” individuals (20%) and small business owners (16%). 416 Only one in every twenty (5%) environmental protection offences committed by corporations were assessed as being of high objective seriousness. Corporations had a higher profile in terms of offences of medium objective gravity. More than four out of every ten (42.5%) corporate offences were deemed to be of medium seriousness; this was roughly the same percentage as for “ordinary Joe” individuals. The share of offences committed by “special liability” offenders assessed as being of medium objective seriousness offenders was 23%. The environmental protection offences of both corporations and “special liability” offenders were more likely than not (52%) to be of low objective seriousness. Environmental harm The level of environmental harm — or potential harm — caused by the offender is an essential consideration in the sentencing of environmental protection offenders. 417 If the environmental harm is severe, this can be an aggravating factor, 418 which will increase the objective seriousness of the offence: • Serious environmental harm was recorded against just 48 offenders (around 13% of all environmental protection offences) in the study period. Serious harm was more likely occasioned by small business owners (26% of their offences) and, to a somewhat lesser degree, by “special liability” offenders (15%) and “ordinary Joe” individuals (15%). Low levels of serious harm resulted from the offences perpetrated by corporations (9.5% of their offences). • Medium environmental harm was recorded against 73 offenders (19.5% of all environmental protection offences). Once more, small business owners were the main culprits with 28% of their offences occasioning medium levels of environmental harm. • Low environmental harm was recorded against 148 offenders (40% of all environmental protection offences). Corporations (46%), in general, were linked to low levels of environmental harm. 414 In general terms, the vast majority of environmental protection offences involve acts of pollution. For example, the three most common environmental protection offences make up almost 57% of such offences (ie pollute waters offences: 118 offences or 31.6%; contravene any condition of licence: 55 offences or 14.7%; discharge oil (etc) into State waters: 39 offences or 10.4%). 415 See discussion of “objective seriousness” at [2.1.2]. 416 Percentages are rounded up or down to the nearest whole percentage, except for half per cents (for example 73.5%). 417 See previous discussion of environmental harm in the context of environmental protection offences in Crimes against environmental protection laws at [1.6.1]. Harm is also a consideration outside of environmental protection in Crimes against environmental planning laws at [1.6.2]. 418 See s 21A(2)(g) of the CSP Act . Section 21A of this Act specifies the aggravating and mitigating factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for an offence.