Citation: Department of Agriculture v Court; Department of Agriculture v Taiaroa [1999] NSWSC 355
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 23 April 1999
Judge(s): Studdert J
Background
The Director General of the NSW Department of Agriculture brought separate prosecutions against two defendants under the Stock Diseases Act 1923, heard together by Studdert J. One defendant owned two horses and arranged for their transport; the other drove the vehicle and horse float carrying them from Queensland into New South Wales via the Tweed Heads bypass on 7 August 1995.
A stock inspector observed the vehicle on camera surveillance and intercepted it after it crossed the border. Inspection at the Kirra Treatment Yards revealed that both horses were heavily infested with cattle ticks, with larval stage ticks numbering in the dozens found on the neck, shoulder, jaw, and chest areas of each animal.
Neither defendant disputed their involvement in bringing the horses into the state, nor did either deny the specific breaches alleged. The sole factual issue at hearing was whether either defendant knew he was committing an offence.
Legal Issues
- Whether each defendant had contravened Provision 2 of Proclamation No. 520 under the Stock Diseases Act 1923 by introducing tick-infested stock into New South Wales.
- Whether each defendant had contravened Provision 3 of the same proclamation by failing to give 48 hours' notice to a border inspector before introducing the stock.
- Whether each defendant had contravened Provision 5(3) of the same proclamation by introducing stock without a permit from a border inspector.
- What penalties were appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the offences and the personal circumstances of each defendant.
Decision
Studdert J was satisfied that the prosecution had proved all three offences against each defendant. The horses were heavily infested with cattle ticks, neither defendant had given prior notice to the border inspector, and neither held a permit for the introduction of the stock. The offences were established on the evidence.
On the question of knowledge, the court found that the offences under the Stock Diseases Act proclamation provisions were ones of strict liability. The defendants' claimed ignorance of the requirements did not operate as a defence, though it was relevant to penalty.
In assessing penalties, the court considered the strict liability nature of the offences, the significant biosecurity risk posed by the introduction of tick-infested animals into NSW, and mitigating factors including the defendants' cooperation with inspectors, their candour throughout, and their personal financial circumstances. The court also took into account that ignorance of the law, while not a defence, reduced the defendants' moral culpability to some degree.
Each defendant was convicted of all three offences and fined a total of $3,500: $2,000 for introducing tick-infested stock and $750 for each of the notice and permit failures. Costs orders of $7,500 each were also made, with one defendant permitted to pay his share of costs by monthly instalments of not less than $100.
Orders Made
Defendant Court (matter 11076/97):
- Convicted of all three offences.
- Fined $2,000 for introducing cattle tick-infested horses (contravention of Provision 2, Proclamation No. 520).
- Fined $750 for failing to give requisite notice (contravention of Provision 3).
- Fined $750 for introducing stock without a permit (contravention of Provision 5(3)).
- Ordered to pay prosecutor's costs of $7,500 by monthly instalments of not less than $100, with the first instalment due within 28 days.
Defendant Taiaroa (matter 11077/97):
- Convicted of all three offences.
- Fined $2,000 for introducing cattle tick-infested horses (contravention of Provision 2, Proclamation No. 520).
- Fined $750 for failing to give requisite notice (contravention of Provision 3).
- Fined $750 for introducing stock without a permit (contravention of Provision 5(3)).
- Ordered to pay prosecutor's costs of $7,500.
Key Takeaways
- The offences under the Stock Diseases Act 1923 proclamation provisions were treated as strict liability offences: the prosecution was not required to prove that either defendant knew he was breaching the law.
- Ignorance of regulatory requirements governing the interstate movement of stock did not constitute a defence, though it was a relevant mitigating factor in determining the appropriate penalty.
- Where multiple offences arise from a single course of conduct, courts may impose separate penalties for each distinct breach of a proclamation, rather than treating them as a single composite offence.
- Cooperation with inspectors, candour in answering questions, and the absence of prior convictions were among the factors the court weighed in mitigation when setting penalty levels.
- Costs arrangements agreed between the parties, including instalment payment terms, can be reflected in formal court orders.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Stock Diseases Act 1923 (NSW), including Proclamation No. 520
- Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 (NSW)
- Fines Act 1996 (NSW)
- Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (NSW)
- Crimes Act (NSW)
- Clean Waters Act (NSW)
- Clean Air Act (NSW)
- State Pollution Control Commission Act (NSW)
- Environmental Offences and Penalties Act (NSW)
Cases:
- R v H (1980) 3 A Crim R 53
- Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Limited v EPA (1993) 32 NSWLR 683
- Kaye v Vagg (No 2) (1984) 11 A Crim R 127
- R v Fraser (1985) 20 A Crim R 4
- R v Rahme (1989) 43 A Crim R 81
- Smith v The Queen (1991) 25 NSWLR 1