On 4 December, 2009, Unimin Australia Limited, which now owns and controls CRL and all mining operations on the Island, was charged with two criminal offences relating to illegal sand mining on the Island since 2001, the year it commenced mining on the Island. In June an additional criminal charge was added. There is a hearing in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 7 September, 2010.
The criminal charges followed a lengthy investigation by the now defunct Environmental Protection Authority ( EPA ) and a decision by the Supreme Court on 30 November ( Unimin Australia Limited v State of Queensland 9409/09 ) which rejected Unimin’s legal arguments aimed at legitimizing its past actions and allowing it to continue to sell Island sand to the building construction industry. The criminal charges involve Unimin’s unlawful removal, over the past decade, of substantial quantities of non-mineral sand and its sale to the landscape and construction industries in Brisbane and beyond. In the Supreme Court case, Unimin admitted selling the sand but claimed it was authorised to do so under mining law. The Judge rejected the claim. Unimin appealed but on 2 July, 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the sale of the sand was unlawful, irrespective of whether some royalties had been paid. The Court further found that the opinion of a public servant that the sales were lawful because the sand was a mineral was both wrong and irrelevant to the Court’s findings.
After the initial hearing of the case on 25 September, 2009, it came to light that the Judge was not made aware of a disturbing feature of the case put forward by Unimin. It had informed the Court that the Redland City Council approved of its business of selling this sand for landscaping and building work. This was untrue. Unimin knew this. It had in fact been told by the Council that the proposed sale of this sand was an inconsistent use in a ‘conservation zone’ under the Redlands Planning Scheme and that if it lodged an application for approval of such a proposal, it would be ‘impact assessable’. It was given a list of issues that would have to be addressed in any application. Unimin concealed all of this from the Court. Unimin also failed to inform the Judge that the Council had unanimously rejected an application by a Unimin subsidiary to remove sand from other mining leases on the Island and sell it on the mainland for building construction purposes.
Unimin’s actions in misleading a Supreme Court Judge should be sufficient for the Government to refuse all applications for renewal of expired mining leases on the Island and to cancel unexpired leases. The company has shown it is not a fit and proper corporation to be trusted to carry out mining on the Island – all mining leases are situated in Conservation zones under the Redlands Planning Scheme, approved by the State Government in 2006. There are about 20 expired or soon to be expired Island mining leases and all un-expired leases are held either by Unimin or subsidiary companies owned and controlled by Unimin. The leases take up more than half of the Island and the public is excluded under threat of prosecution for trespass.
See the Courier Mail article in the media clippings section for more information about the criminal charges.
