(1) If a body corporate commits an offence against this Act, a prescribed officer (see definition below of prescribed officer) of the corporation:-

(a) is guilty of the offence; and

(b) is liable, on conviction, to a penalty of not more than the maximum penalty that may be imposed for a contravention of the offence when committed by an individual.

 

prescribed officer, in relation to an offence committed by a corporation, means—

(a) a director of the corporation or other person responsible for the direction, management and control of the corporation; or

 

(b) any other person who is concerned in, or takes part in, the management of the corporation and whose responsibilities include duties in relation to the matters giving rise to the offence.

 

 

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence if:-

 

(a) the defendant exercised due diligence to prevent the corporation from doing the act or making the omission alleged to constitute the offence or an element of the offence committed by the body corporation; or

 

(b) an officer or employee of the corporataion occupying the defendant’s position could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the contravention; or

 

(c) the corporation would not have been found guilty of the offence because of its being able to establish a defence available to it under this Act.

 

 

 

(1) It is a defence to a prosecution if:

 

 

The steps taken by it:-

 

(i) to ensure that people employed or engaged by it were aware of the requirements of this Act and any relevant environmental laws and standards relating to the prevention or minimisation of environmental harm; or

 

(ii) to ensure compliance with those laws and standards by those people; or

 

(iii) to establish an environmental management system and to ensure implementation and compliance with it.

 

 

 

(i) whether the defendant was personally familiar with the requirements of this Act and any relevant environmental laws and standards relating to the prevention or minimisation of environmental harm; or

 

(ii) whether the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with those laws and standards; or

 

(iii) the steps taken by the defendant to ensure other people for whom it was relevant were familiar with this Act and any relevant laws and standards, and compliance with those laws and standards by those people; or

 

(iv) the steps taken by the defendant to establish an environmental management system and to ensure familiarity and compliance with it by other people for whom it was relevant; or

 

(v) whether the defendant reacted immediately and personally when the defendant became aware of any noncompliance with the environmental management system or other incident connected with the environmental harm that happened; or

 

 

(i) whether the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to become familiar with this Act and any relevant environmental laws and standards relating to the prevention or minimisation of environmental harm; or

 

(ii) whether the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with those laws and standards; or

 

(iii) whether the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to become familiar, and comply, with any environmental management system established by the corporation to the extent that the system is relevant to his or her position; or

 

(iv) the steps taken by the defendant to prevent or minimise environmental harm when the defendant became aware of any incident connected with the environmental harm that

happened or the likelihood of any such incident.

You can view the complete Act at the following link http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/epa1997284/