Port Macquarie – Hastings Council v Lawlor Services Pty Limited; Port Macquarie – Hastings Council v Petro (No 5) [2007] NSWLEC 362

Port Macquarie – Hastings Council v Lawlor Services Pty Limited; Port Macquarie – Hastings Council v Petro (No 5) [2007] NSWLEC 362

There is evidence which, if accepted, could support each element of the prosecution case, including the applicability of the TPO, lack of exemption, and potential participation in a joint criminal enterprise by Mr Petro. On the authorities, the offence is of strict liability and the 'no case to answer' submission must be dismissed as the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could sustain a conviction.

Parties
Prosecutor: Port Macquarie – Hastings Council; First Defendant: Lawlor Services Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Edmund Petro
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / No Case to Answer Submission
Outcome
No case to answer submission dismissed.
Legal Topics
Environmental Offences, Tree Preservation, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Strict Liability Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Law Environmental Offences Tree Preservation Joint Criminal Enterprise Strict Liability Offences

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Port Macquarie – Hastings Council

Prosecutor

Lawlor Services Pty Limited

First Defendant

Edmund Petro

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / No Case to Answer Submission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 'no case to answer' submission should be granted for either defendant regarding prosecution under s 125 EP&A Act for alleged unlawful destruction of trees on land subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
  2. 2 Whether the forestry activity constituted a continuing use exempted by s 109 EP&A Act and consequently excluded from the operation of the TPO and LEP.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged conduct was exempt under cl 7(g) of the TPO, by virtue of having been conducted in accordance with a valid Harvest Management Plan.

Ratio Decidendi

There is evidence which, if accepted, could support each element of the prosecution case, including the applicability of the TPO, lack of exemption, and potential participation in a joint criminal enterprise by Mr Petro. On the authorities, the offence is of strict liability and the 'no case to answer' submission must be dismissed as the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could sustain a conviction.

Court Disposition

No case to answer submission dismissed.