Search the Community

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not specify who the other parties were but said: "Galaxy Logistics was charged for its role in the offence but NEA has withdrawn the charge based on further evidence.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.