Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Camrysfa

NEA asks court to 'acquit' firm booked over 'toxic' material

Recommended Posts

This article appeared in the papers today. Quite unusual, NEA had to go to court to ACQUIT the company they wanted to charge.....

 

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/37420-nea-asks-court-to-acquit-firm-booked-over-toxic-material.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss

 

NEA asks court to 'acquit' firm booked over 'toxic' material

 

THE National Environment Agency (NEA) has asked a court to effectively acquit a firm that the agency had booked last year for moving harmful material illegally.

Galaxy Logistics had faced a fine of up to $30,000 for transporting a hazardous chemical outside approved hours. Without elaborating, the NEA prosecutor had asked a district court on Feb 5 to grant Galaxy a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

In reply to queries from The Straits Times, NEA said an offence involving a few parties had been committed as hazardous substances were found to have been transported outside stipulated hours.

NEA did not specify who the other parties were but said: "Galaxy Logistics was charged for its role in the offence but NEA has withdrawn the charge based on further evidence. NEA is continuing with its investigations and will take appropriate legal action. Public safety remains our paramount concern."

However, Galaxy's defence counsel Christopher Bridges said he did not produce any new evidence in the pre-trial conferences. Instead, he had argued that the prosecution had not been able to provide any legislation that specifically stated that the chemical transported was a hazardous material.

According to court documents, Galaxy was transporting a detergent known as Divosan Active SU 388 VTS in a truck along Pioneer Road just past midnight on Oct 2, 2012. The detergent contains peracetic acid, which NEA said was hazardous.

NEA issued a summons to the firm in May last year for moving the material outside the prescribed hours of between 7am and 7pm.

Galaxy was alleged to have committed an offence as NEA said peracetic acid was listed as hazardous in the Second Schedule of the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) as well as the Schedule of Environmental Protection and Management (Hazardous Substances) Regulations.

However, Mr Bridges said there was no reference to peracetic acid in both lists. He also said it would be unreasonable to read "organic peroxides" in the EPMA to include all types of organic peroxides. There were different classes of organic peroxides and "it would not be Parliament's intention to include non-hazardous organic peroxides into the purview of the regulations and the EPMA", he said.

The charge was "too arbitrary and hence defective as peracetic acid is not clearly and explicitly listed... as a hazardous substance", he added.

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contention was whether peracetic acid is a hazardous material. The charge could not stick because it was not specifically stated in the list.

 

NEA will probably tighten up the lisiting - which should be good for public safety.

 

Either no issue or the fish got away.......

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the main course could be 'the other few parties' in a can which they do not want to open up.... Later all the worms come out how? ......

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys think too much lah. It could just be an honest mistake.

 

Let's move on lah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more interested in the other cases where NEA vs WP on the trade fair thingy..... [sly]

 

If approval were given to others, why only theirs cannot.... [grin]

 

Today paper reported that WP claim trail ... :ph34r:

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary is NEA trying to fine the company and smoke them that it is against some regulations. But company lawyer sexposed them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contention was whether peracetic acid is a hazardous material. The charge could not stick because it was not specifically stated in the list.

 

NEA will probably tighten up the lisiting - which should be good for public safety.

 

Either no issue or the fish got away.......

 

chap who forgot to update the list gonna sign lots of extras [laugh]

looks like lots of folks are gonna transport these not on the list chemical no [laugh]

 

maybe kena already become joker [laugh]

 

jokerLineup.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEA caught Galaxy on Oct 2, 2012.

Fine them on May 2013.

Galaxy appeal, engaged lawyer.

Ding/Dong and case was bought to court Feb 2014

 

NEA realised that they might not be correct and withdraw the case.

 

Fyi, the product:-

 

 

 

UN 3149

Class

5.1

Hydrogen peroxide and peroxyacetic acid mixtures, stabilized, with acids, water, and not more than 5 percent peroxyacetic acid

 

 

Edited by Vhtfhwlego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comes the next question...

 

 

is NEA gonna apologize for the inconvenience caused???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then my next question is who is picking up the tab for scoring an own goal for NEA? [confused]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comes the next question...

 

 

is NEA gonna apologize for the inconvenience caused???

 

Jialat liao...

 

They should have ask for a Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal instead of a DATA. But then again, Chris will definitely not accept this offer.

 

 

chap who forgot to update the list gonna sign lots of extras [laugh]

looks like lots of folks are gonna transport these not on the list chemical no [laugh]

 

maybe kena already become joker [laugh]

 

jokerLineup.jpg

 

Bro, we are talking about subsidiary legislation here...not a nominal roll where they can anyhow add or delete.

 

The problem now is not whether going-forward, ppl in this line gonna transport this or not.

 

The real problem now is - whether NEA had prosecuted anyone before this case and had them convicted of this offence anot? If no...then not so bad. If yes...XIAO LIAO!!

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEA issued a summons to the firm in May last year for moving the material outside the prescribed hours of between 7am and 7pm.

 

Galaxy was caught transporting the material at abt 12 mid-night.

Can't understand why between 7am and 7pm is a SAFE period to transport hazardous matl.

Thought mid-night would be better? Less traffic, less people on the roads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEA issued a summons to the firm in May last year for moving the material outside the prescribed hours of between 7am and 7pm.

 

Galaxy was caught transporting the material at abt 12 mid-night.

Can't understand why between 7am and 7pm is a SAFE period to transport hazardous matl.

Thought mid-night would be better? Less traffic, less people on the roads?

 

Mid-night got Ferrari beat red light!

 

No time is a good time...

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like NEA trying to save face - it should just admit its own silly mistake and simply withdraw the charges to save everyone's time and not trying to assign the responsibility of the outcome to the Court!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEA issued a summons to the firm in May last year for moving the material outside the prescribed hours of between 7am and 7pm.

 

Galaxy was caught transporting the material at abt 12 mid-night.

Can't understand why between 7am and 7pm is a SAFE period to transport hazardous matl.

Thought mid-night would be better? Less traffic, less people on the roads?

 

though emergency response is supposed to be 24/7, but........ safer to be within working hours, so anything happened, can still contact easily......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

though emergency response is supposed to be 24/7, but........ safer to be within working hours, so anything happened, can still contact easily......

 

 

Especially after Little India's experience [flowerface]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From midnight till 5.00am is not safe to transport, then I don't know when can transport materials... [grin]

 

fren, you must understand not everything is 24/7. Even if emergency response is 24/7, when sh1ts happen, you need other non 24/7 teams too. Even crucial emergency services are not fully-manned during this wee hours.

 

 

 

 

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×