Hewett v Adams [1991] NSWLEC 104 (2 October 1991) [1991] NSWLEC 1

Hewett v Adams [1991] NSWLEC 104 (2 October 1991) [1991] NSWLEC 1

The defendant was convicted on Summons No.50106/91 because the Court accepted the evidence of Council officers that he admitted felling a few trees with his bulldozer, and no consent had been obtained. The charge in Summons No.50105/91 was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the defendant was a principal in the first degree or that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured Mr Barrass to carry out the wholesale destruction of trees; knowledge of the essential matters required for aiding and abetting was not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1991
Procedural Posture
Prosecutions Alleging Breach of a Tree Preservation Order / Judgment After Not Guilty Pleas and Hearing
Outcome
Defendant convicted on Summons No.50106/91 and fined $1,000; charge in Summons No.50105/91 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tree Preservation Order' 'unauthorised Tree Removal' 'aiding and Abetting' 'mens Rea' 'authority to Commence Prosecutions' 'costs']
['environmental Planning Law' 'criminal Law'] ['tree Preservation Order' 'unauthorised Tree Removal' 'aiding and Abetting' 'mens Rea' 'authority to Commence Prosecutions' 'costs']

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

Prosecutions Alleging Breach of a Tree Preservation Order / Judgment After Not Guilty Pleas and Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecutor was authorised to institute the prosecutions.' 'Whether the defendant removed, injured or wilfully destroyed trees contrary to a Tree Preservation Order.' 'Whether the defendant aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to remove, injure or wilfully destroy trees contrary to a Tree Preservation Order.' 'Whether mens rea was an element of the offence created by a Tree Preservation Order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was convicted on Summons No.50106/91 because the Court accepted the evidence of Council officers that he admitted felling a few trees with his bulldozer, and no consent had been obtained. The charge in Summons No.50105/91 was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the defendant was a principal in the first degree or that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured Mr Barrass to carry out the wholesale destruction of trees; knowledge of the essential matters required for aiding and abetting was not established.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted on Summons No.50106/91 and fined $1,000; charge in Summons No.50105/91 dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted on the charge in Summons No.50106/91 of removing, injuring or wilfully destroying trees.' 'The charge in Summons No.50105/91 is dismissed.' 'On Summons No.50106/91, the defendant is fined $1,000.00.' 'The Court refuses to order costs against the Prosecutor on Summons No.50105/91.' "The...