Parramatta City Council v Sua trading as Foxy Tree Services [2010] NSWLEC 93

Parramatta City Council v Sua trading as Foxy Tree Services [2010] NSWLEC 93

The offences were at the less serious end of the spectrum for s 125 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 offences because the environmental harm was minor and the trees had no particular significance, but a penalty more than nominal was required because the Defendant was an experienced tree lopping contractor, knew at least the large tree required Council approval, failed to check approval before arranging substantial same-day work, acted deliberately as to the lopping of the large tree and carelessly at best as to the other trees, and specific and general deterrence were important. Taking into account the totality principle, early guilty pleas, remorse, cooperation, lack of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Offences Under S 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for Cutting Down and Lopping Trees in Breach of a Tree Preservation Order / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty
Outcome
Defendant convicted on both charges and fined a total of $6,000, with costs payable in matter no 50010 of 2010.
Legal Topics
['tree Preservation Order' 'unlawful Tree Clearing' 'strict Liability Offence' 'objective Gravity' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'totality Principle']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['tree Preservation Order' 'unlawful Tree Clearing' 'strict Liability Offence' 'objective Gravity' 'general Deterrence' 'specific Deterrence' 'mitigating Factors' 'totality Principle']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for Offences Under S 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for Cutting Down and Lopping Trees in Breach of a Tree Preservation Order / Sentence Following Pleas of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed for two guilty pleas to offences under s 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 involving cutting down three trees and lopping one tree in breach of a tree preservation order.' "How the objective seriousness of the offences should be assessed, including environmental harm, the defendant's reasons for offending, and his state of mind." 'What weight should be given to mitigation including the early guilty plea, remorse, cooperation with the Prosecutor, absence of prior convictions, financial means, and liability for costs.' 'Whether general deterrence and specific deterrence required a penalty more than nominal for a tree lopping contractor who failed to check Council approval.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were at the less serious end of the spectrum for s 125 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 offences because the environmental harm was minor and the trees had no particular significance, but a penalty more than nominal was required because the Defendant was an experienced tree lopping contractor, knew at least the large tree required Council approval, failed to check approval before arranging substantial same-day work, acted deliberately as to the lopping of the large tree and carelessly at best as to the other trees, and specific and general deterrence were important. Taking into account the totality principle, early guilty pleas, remorse, cooperation, lack of...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted on both charges and fined a total of $6,000, with costs payable in matter no 50010 of 2010.

Orders

  • ['In matter no 50010 of 2010: The Defendant is convicted of the offence with which he is charged.' "In matter no 50010 of 2010: The Defendant is fined the sum of $5,500 to be paid to the Registrar of the Court within 28 days of today's date." "In matter no 50010 of 2010: The Defendant must pay the Prosecutor's costs...