DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION v. M.W. ROBSON [1998] NSWLEC 174 (6 August 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 72
Because the clearing caused undoubted adverse environmental consequences but was committed after early guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition, ignorance of the consent requirement, and particularly because Mr Robson undertook extensive revegetation and management obligations, it was appropriate to convict Mr Robson but impose a s126(3) direction in substitution for any pecuniary penalty. Given the contractors' limited culpability and non-professional role in land clearing, the summonses against Mr Newman and Newman Quarrying Pty Limited were dismissed under s556A, subject to costs orders.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 August 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Prosecution for Offences Against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Concerning Clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
- Outcome
- Mr Robson was convicted but no pecuniary penalty was imposed; instead a vegetation management direction was made. The summonses against Mr Newman and Newman Quarrying Pty Limited were dismissed pursuant to s556A of the Crimes Act 1900. Costs orders were made.
- Legal Topics
- ['clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No. 46' 'mitigating Factors' 'ignorance of Law' 'revegetation and Rehabilitation Agreement' 'appropriate Penalty']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Concerning Clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent / Sentencing After Pleas of Guilty
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What penalty or order was appropriate for the clearing of native vegetation without the requisite development consent.' "Whether the defendants' ignorance of the requirement for consent and their reliance on council information mitigated penalty." "Whether the defendant Robson's proposed revegetation and vegetation management obligations justified a direction under s126(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in substitution for a pecuniary penalty." 'Whether the summonses against Mr Newman and Newman Quarrying Pty Limited should be dismissed under s556A of the Crimes Act 1900.']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the clearing caused undoubted adverse environmental consequences but was committed after early guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition, ignorance of the consent requirement, and particularly because Mr Robson undertook extensive revegetation and management obligations, it was appropriate to convict Mr Robson but impose a s126(3) direction in substitution for any pecuniary penalty. Given the contractors' limited culpability and non-professional role in land clearing, the summonses against Mr Newman and Newman Quarrying Pty Limited were dismissed under s556A, subject to costs orders.
Court Disposition
Mr Robson was convicted but no pecuniary penalty was imposed; instead a vegetation management direction was made. The summonses against Mr Newman and Newman Quarrying Pty Limited were dismissed pursuant to s556A of the Crimes Act 1900. Costs orders were made.
Orders
- ['In proceedings 50043 of 1998 the Defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'In substitution for any pecuniary penalty the Defendant is directed pursuant to section 126(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to undertake the works set forth in the proposed vegetation management plan,...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment