Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110

Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change v Hudson (No 2) [2015] NSWLEC 110

The appropriate sentence for unlawfully clearing native vegetation on a broad scale, causing severe environmental harm and motivated by financial gain, is a substantial monetary penalty reflecting the gravity of the objective circumstances and mitigated to a limited degree by the offender's subjective circumstances (good character, no prior convictions, partial remorse, extra-curial punishment). The penalty for failing to comply with a statutory notice is set at a lower level, but, applying the totality principle, the combined overall monetary penalty must be just and appropriate for the total criminality. Orders for costs are appropriate and may be apportioned in light of partial success...

Parties
Prosecutor: Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change; Defendant: John Ross Hudson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Environmental Prosecution (class 5) / Sentencing on Remitter After Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Monetary penalties imposed on the defendant for each offence, with orders for payment of agreed or assessed costs.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Clearing of Native Vegetation, Failure to Comply With Statutory Notice, Sentencing Principles, Objective and Subjective Factors, Costs in Criminal Environmental Proceedings
Environmental Law Criminal Law Unlawful Clearing of Native Vegetation Failure to Comply With Statutory Notice Sentencing Principles Objective and Subjective Factors Costs in Criminal Environmental Proceedings

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 71 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director-General, Department of Environment and Climate Change

Prosecutor

John Ross Hudson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Environmental Prosecution (class 5) / Sentencing on Remitter After Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for unlawful clearing of native vegetation under s 12 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NVA)?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for failing to comply with a notice issued under s 36(2) of the NVA?
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the sentencing rehearing and the original proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate sentence for unlawfully clearing native vegetation on a broad scale, causing severe environmental harm and motivated by financial gain, is a substantial monetary penalty reflecting the gravity of the objective circumstances and mitigated to a limited degree by the offender's subjective circumstances (good character, no prior convictions, partial remorse, extra-curial punishment). The penalty for failing to comply with a statutory notice is set at a lower level, but, applying the totality principle, the combined overall monetary penalty must be just and appropriate for the total criminality. Orders for costs are appropriate and may be apportioned in light of partial success...

Court Disposition

Monetary penalties imposed on the defendant for each offence, with orders for payment of agreed or assessed costs.

Orders

  • For matter 50014 of 2008: The defendant is fined $318,750.
  • For matter 50035 of 2008: The defendant is fined $1,275.