Judge asks prosecution to explain why charges dropped against ex-Linc Energy directors

Prosecutors have been forced to explain why serious environmental charges against four former Linc Energy directors have been sensationally dropped.

Linc Energy’s gas plant near Chinchilla on the western Darling Downs.

A District Court judge has asked a Crown prosecutor to explain why serious environmental charges against four former Linc Energy directors were being dropped.

Crown prosecutor Ralph Devlin told Judge Leanne Clare that the Crown was no longer proceeding on an indictment against Peter Bond, Donald Schofield, Stephen Dumble and Daryl Rattai.

It comes after Mr Bond told The Courier-Mail the marathon case was a waste of $50m of taxpayers’ money.

“This has gone on for seven years. I said from day one it was a witch hunt. It has cost me a lot and I’m still trying to get over it.”

Crown prosecutor Ralph Devlin. Picture: Dan Peled

The four were committed to stand trial in March, last year, on charges alleging they were responsible as directors for breaches of the Environmental Protection Act that caused serious environmental harm.

In 2018, Linc Energy was found guilty and fined $4.5 million for causing harm at its Hopeland underground coal gasification operation, near Chinchilla on the Darling Downs.

“Mr Devlin, given the enormity of the prosecution, the costs and time and also the impact on so many people, it calls for an explanation on the record,” Judge Clare said, after Mr Devlin’s announcement.

Mr Devlin said the Crown reassessed the case regarding the ability to prove serious environmental harm on each of 10 counts, after Judge Clare made a ruling that was tested in the Court of Appeal.

He said the experts that the Crown was going to call in the District Court trial had not addressed the issue of temporal harm – the harm within the time period of each charge.

Mr Devlin said a number of experts were re-interviewed and that situation did not improve.

The reliance on the gas escapes meant the jury had to be asked to infer that the gas escapes were of such a magnitude that harm had occurred in the temporal sense.

Former Linc Energy CEO Peter Bond. Picture: Glenn Hunt

The Crown was not satisfied of the sufficiency of that proof, he said.

“Your case was built around the coal seam gas operation as being a high risk activity and yet the court also heard that the EPA allowed Linc to undertake these high level activities by giving various licences or authorities for years, without monitoring what they were doing,” Judge Clare said.

Mr Devlin said he was aware of many visits by the regulator.

“I can assure you there was regular attention paid to all of the operators of underground coal gasification,” Mr Devlin said.

Judge Clare said she understood the Crown could not say what had escaped or what damage was done at any given point in time.

“At the same time your argument was that Linc had set up and run an operation that was manifestly unsafe and did so for years,” Judge Clare said.

Mr Devlin said warrants were issued in 2013.

Former Linc Energy director Craig Ricato. Picture: Ric Frearson

He said a lot of information received by the department founded the prosecution case in the early stages, and rested on operating logs kept in handwritten form on site.

Once warrants were executed and various electronic data was obtained, the picture became clearer as to the reality of “excursions of gases”.

The Crown had mounted its case on excursions of gases as revealed by the operator logs and electronic data and the company was charged in 2014, Mr Devlin said.

“There were regular visits to the site by the then Environmental Protection Agency,” Mr Devlin said.

“I do not accept any suggestion, with respect, that there was no oversight by the regulator, there was,” Mr Devlin said.

“And yet none of this is apparent in the first six years,” Judge Clare said.

Mr Devlin said there was quite a backstory of the EPA representatives going on site, but it did not form part of the current criminal prosecution.

“Ultimately, the court’s interest in this is now over, but it may well be matters of public interest, for the future,” Judge Clare said.

Barrister Kerri Mellifont QC, for Mr Dumble, said the defence case was always that serious environmental harm could never be established.