Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Offences and enforcement - Strict liability and defences

69: Defences

You could also call this:

"Reasons you might not be in trouble for breaking waste rules"

Illustration for Waste Minimisation Act 2008

If you break a rule in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, you might have a defence. You can say it was necessary to save a life, protect health, prevent injury, or stop serious property damage. You can also say it was necessary to avoid harming the environment.

If you did something wrong, you must show the court that you acted reasonably and fixed the problem afterwards. You can also say that something happened that was beyond your control and you could not have stopped it. If this happens, you must show the court that you fixed the problem as soon as you could.

If you are accused of breaking a specific rule, such as one made under section 56 or section 65(1)(a), (c), or (e), you can defend yourself. You must show the court that you did everything you could to stop the problem and that you fixed it afterwards. This can help you if you are accused of doing something wrong under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM1154650.

Topics:
Environment and resources > ConservationCrime and justice > Courts and legal help
Previous

68: Strict liability, or

"Being held responsible for doing something wrong, even if you didn't mean to"

Next

70: Liability of principals for acts of agents, or

"When you do something wrong at work, your boss can also get in trouble"

Part 5Offences and enforcement
Strict liability and defences

69Defences

  1. It is a defence to an offence against this Act, or a bylaw made under section 56, if the court is satisfied—

  2. that—
    1. the act or omission giving rise to the offence was necessary—
      1. to save or protect life or health or prevent injury; or
        1. to prevent serious damage to property; or
          1. to avoid actual or likely significant harm to the environment; and
          2. the conduct of the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances; and
            1. the effects of the act or omission were adequately remedied or mitigated by the defendant after the offence occurred; or
            2. that—
              1. the act or omission giving rise to the offence was due to an action or event beyond the control of the defendant; and
                1. the action or event could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented by the defendant; and
                  1. the effects of the defendant’s act or omission were adequately remedied or mitigated by the defendant after the offence occurred.

                  2. It is a defence to an offence against section 65(1)(a), (c), or (e) if the court is satisfied that—

                  3. the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent or stop the commission of the offence; and
                    1. the effects of the defendant’s act or omission giving rise to the offence were adequately remedied or mitigated by the defendant after the offence occurred.