Contaminating Goods to Cause Public Alarm
In New South Wales, contaminating goods with the intent to cause public alarm or economic loss is an offence that carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. This offence can apply to a person who commits the offence outside of New South Wales if the offence involves intended public alarm or anxiety, or economic loss, within New South Wales.
What is Contaminating Goods?
The offence of Contaminating Goods is contained in section 93K of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which states that a person who contaminates goods with the intention of:
- causing public alarm or anxiety, or
- causing economic loss through public awareness of the contamination,
is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
There are relevant definitions for ‘contaminate’, ‘goods’ and ‘economic loss’ contained in section 93J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
The definition of contaminate includes:
- interfering with the goods, or
- making it appear that the goods have been contaminated or interfered with.
Goods are defined as including goods:
- whether or not for human consumption, and
- whether natural or manufactured, and
- whether or not incorporated or mixed with other goods.
Economic loss caused through public awareness of the Contamination of Goods includes a reference to economic loss caused through:
- members of the public not purchasing or using those goods or similar goods, or
- steps taken to avoid public alarm or anxiety about those goods or similar goods.
A charge of Contaminating Goods may result from the following actions:
- Spraying pesticide on a competitor’s organic farm crops and making a public post about it so that they lose business because they can no longer claim their produce is organic;
- Contaminating a water supply with a virus and making that knowledge public in order to cause mass panic;
- Posting a video of yourself to Facebook pretending to urinate on goods in a local grocery store in the hope that no one will shop at that store.
What Must be Proven?
For a person to be found guilty of Contamination of Goods, the Prosecution must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:
- you contaminated goods; and
- Intended to:
- cause public alarm or anxiety; or
- cause economic loss through public awareness of the contamination.
Which Court Will Hear Your Matter?
This offence is a Table 1 offence, which means that it will be dealt with in the Local Court unless the Prosecution or accused elects to have the matter dealt with in the District Court.
Possible Defences for Contamination of Goods
Possible defences to contaminating goods include but are not limited to:
- That the accused did not intend to cause public alarm, anxiety of economic loss;
- That the accused did not do the act alleged.
Common Questions about Contamination of Goods
Will I receive a criminal conviction?
A conviction and criminal record for this offence is very likely.
In NSW, a Court can impose any of the following penalties for this offence.
- Gaol Sentence
- Intensive Corrections Order (ICO)
- Community Corrections Orders (CCO)
- Conditional Release Order with conviction (CRO)
- Fine
- Conditional Release Order without conviction (CRO)
- S10A
- Section 10
The consequences of a conviction can be serious depending upon what you do for a living. Some jobs require you to have no criminal convictions and a conviction might jeopardise your job or make it difficult to obtain visas for overseas travel. Moreover a conviction for an offence can completely rule out certain career paths such as teaching and a range of government employment options.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
This article was written by Angela Cooney
Angela Cooney is the National Practice Director of Criminal Law at Armstrong Legal and is an Accredited Criminal Law Specialist. Angela is a confident and formidable advocate for her clients. She commonly appears in very complex and serious matters but is able to assist clients with all kinds of criminal and traffic offences. Angela is an experienced court advocate having...