Fresh environmental harm allegations levelled at New Acland by Queensland Conservation Council

Disgruntled lawyers for New Acland Group have urged a Toowoomba court to order the Queensland Conservation Council to hand over all evidence alleging the coal mine caused significant environmental harm.

Disgruntled lawyers for New Acland Coal urged a Toowoomba court to order the Queensland Conservation Council to hand over all evidence that alleges the coal mine caused significant environmental harm. Photo: File

New Acland Coal Mine is facing fresh allegations of environmental harm, with new charges before the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, which came to light in late 2023.

The charges were brought forward by Queensland’s leading independent environmental agency - The Queensland Conservation Council.

When the case was mentioned before the court for a second time on February 28, legal representation for the mining giant said they were not pleased with the case’s progress.

New Acland Coal has before court charges of wilfully and unlawfully causing serious environmental harm, and unlawfully carrying out a regulated resource activity in an area of regional interest without holding, or acting under approval.

The coal mine which began operating in 2002 is owned by New Hope Group, and is located about 50km west of Toowoomba. Picture: Kevin Farmer

Queensland Conservation Council prosecutor Lara Soldi told the court when the matter was first mentioned in December 2023, the court was told the brief of evidence was likely to be completed in February.

“There are three expert reports – those experts are (still) in the process of finalising those reports,” she said.

“We expect that to be done by the end of March and the experts are aware of that expectation.”

Magistrate Louise Shephard noted the court file did not indicate a brief had been ordered.

Ms Shephard asked barrister Michael Copley KC if he was satisfied with the prosecution asking for an adjournment to April 26 – he was not.

Mr Copley indicated he was not satisfied with the progression of the case given a full brief of evidence wasn’t supplied, noting the alleged environmental complaint first came to fruition on October 11, 2023.

“By the 10th day of November 2023 the (Queensland Conservation Council) had apparently formed a reasonable suspicion that offences under the Environment Protection Act and under the Regional Planning Interest Act had been committed by (New Acland),” he said.

“One would have thought that the commencement of a private prosecution is a very serious step to take and that a prosecutor or a complainant wouldn’t embark upon that step without having obtained all the evidence necessary to prove all the elements of the offence.

“And if not able to disclose the brief of evidence at the time when the complaint summons is served, and if unable to disclose the brief of evidence at the first mention, one would think the brief of evidence would be able to be disclosed very quickly thereafter.”

New Acland Coal is touted as a major employer of the Darling Downs region.

Mr Copley said the only evidence disclosed by the prosecution was a witness statement from a pilot who flew over the New Acland mine site and asked Ms Shephard to make a direction for it to be supplied to his office within 14 days.

“Because surely this step wouldn’t have been taken without having evidence to hand in November or December,” he said.

“And that will enable (us) to determine what course (we) wish to take.”

Ms Shephard said it was extraordinary only one witness statement was disclosed.

Ms Soldi said the defence lawyers were also provided with “a lengthy statement”.

Ms Shephard said she would direct the evidence to be provided within two weeks.
She said if there was outstanding material, it should be provided on or before the matter is next mentioned before the court on April 5, three weeks shy of what the Queensland Conservation Council asked for.