Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Kurstjens Onroerend Goed AU B.V.; Kurstjens; Beefwood 1 Pty Ltd; Beefwood 2 Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC 140

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v Kurstjens Onroerend Goed AU B.V.; Kurstjens; Beefwood 1 Pty Ltd; Beefwood 2 Pty Ltd [2024] NSWLEC 140

The appropriate sentences are determined by synthesising the objective seriousness of the offending (extent of unauthorised clearing, degree of harm—substantial where land converted to cropland, low elsewhere, conduct for financial gain, state of mind—reckless/negligent), subjective factors (prior good character but prior relevant offending for Mr Kurstjens, limited evidence of remorse), necessity for general and specific deterrence, and the discount for plea of guilty (15%, given non-early plea). Fines are set for each offence accordingly, with a moiety payable to the Department and agreed costs orders; no further reduction for totality due to separate corporate defendants/land parcels...

Parties
Prosecutor: Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage; Defendant: Kurstjens Onroerend Goed AU B.V.; Defendant: Gerardus Johannes Jacobus Kurstjens; Defendant: Beefwood 1 Pty Ltd; Defendant: Beefwood 2 Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Penalty Hearing Orders
Outcome
Defendants convicted. Fines imposed for each offence, half payable to the prosecutor's Department, with joint and several costs ordered ($250,000).
Legal Topics
Native Vegetation Clearing, Sentencing for Environmental Offences, Financial Gain in Statutory Offences, Objective Seriousness, Subjective Circumstances, Deterrence
Environmental Law Criminal Law Native Vegetation Clearing Sentencing for Environmental Offences Financial Gain in Statutory Offences Objective Seriousness Subjective Circumstances Deterrence

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 8 Authorities cited 45 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage

Prosecutor

Kurstjens Onroerend Goed AU B.V.

Defendant

Gerardus Johannes Jacobus Kurstjens

Defendant

Beefwood 1 Pty Ltd

Defendant

Beefwood 2 Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sentence / Penalty Hearing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate penalty for each defendant for offences against s 12(1) of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW)?
  2. 2 What are the objective and subjective circumstances relevant to sentence in environmental prosecutions involving unauthorised clearing?
  3. 3 Should the penalties reflect general and specific deterrence, and financial gain?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate sentences are determined by synthesising the objective seriousness of the offending (extent of unauthorised clearing, degree of harm—substantial where land converted to cropland, low elsewhere, conduct for financial gain, state of mind—reckless/negligent), subjective factors (prior good character but prior relevant offending for Mr Kurstjens, limited evidence of remorse), necessity for general and specific deterrence, and the discount for plea of guilty (15%, given non-early plea). Fines are set for each offence accordingly, with a moiety payable to the Department and agreed costs orders; no further reduction for totality due to separate corporate defendants/land parcels...

Court Disposition

Defendants convicted. Fines imposed for each offence, half payable to the prosecutor's Department, with joint and several costs ordered ($250,000).

Orders

  • Kurstjens Onroerend Goed AU B.V.: Convicted on two offences, fined $119,000 and $85,000, half to Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; to pay costs $250,000 joint and several.
  • Gerardus Johannes Jacobus Kurstjens: Convicted, fined $102,000, half to Department; to pay costs $250,000 joint and several.