Director-General Department Of Land And Water Conservation -V- Ramke [1999] NSWLEC 22

Director-General Department Of Land And Water Conservation -V- Ramke [1999] NSWLEC 22

Given the defendant's limited financial resources, genuine contrition, cooperation, lack of prior record, and the significant financial burden imposed by the order for costs and ongoing land use restrictions, the Court found that the charge should be dismissed pursuant to s 556A of the Crimes Act, with the costs order and consent orders sufficient as punishment.

Parties
Prosecutor: Director-General Department of Land and Water Conservation; Defendant: Barry Lawrence Ramke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing and Orders
Outcome
Charge dismissed pursuant to s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900; orders made by consent restraining use of land and requiring soil conservation works; costs order in favour of prosecutor.
Legal Topics
Penalty Assessment, Clearing Native Vegetation, Application of S 556 a Crimes Act, Costs Discretion
Environmental Law Criminal Law Penalty Assessment Clearing Native Vegetation Application of S 556 a Crimes Act Costs Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director-General Department of Land and Water Conservation

Prosecutor

Barry Lawrence Ramke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Environmental Prosecution / Sentencing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate penalty for unlawful clearing of native vegetation without development consent
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise discretion to make a costs order and its extent
  3. 3 Application of s 556A Crimes Act 1900 and availability of a dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's limited financial resources, genuine contrition, cooperation, lack of prior record, and the significant financial burden imposed by the order for costs and ongoing land use restrictions, the Court found that the charge should be dismissed pursuant to s 556A of the Crimes Act, with the costs order and consent orders sufficient as punishment.

Court Disposition

Charge dismissed pursuant to s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900; orders made by consent restraining use of land and requiring soil conservation works; costs order in favour of prosecutor.

Orders

  • The charge is dismissed pursuant to s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • By consent, the defendant is to maintain native vegetation on part Lot 207 as defined, restrained from agricultural/horticultural use or permitting stock without written approval, and must construct and maintain fencing at his expense; other specific use and access restrictions as outlined in orders (i)-(xi).