Thomson v Martin [1991] NSWLEC 31 (7 March 1991) [1991] NSWLEC 3

Thomson v Martin [1991] NSWLEC 31 (7 March 1991) [1991] NSWLEC 3

A conviction and substantial penalty were warranted because of the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the Defendant's criminal and moral responsibility, and his three prior Local Court convictions for offences against tree preservation orders. His status as a hired tree lopping contractor did not mitigate the offence, and a s.126(3) planting order was inappropriate because he did not own the property and the Prosecutor did not seek that penalty. The Prosecutor was entitled to costs because the prosecution was properly brought in this Court with Ministerial consent and concerned a substantial tree in a prominent foreshore location cut down by an experienced...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 1991
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for an Offence Against S.125 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Involving Contravention of a Tree Preservation Order / Penalty and Costs After Finding of Guilt
Outcome
Defendant convicted, fined $5,000, ordered to pay the Prosecutor's reasonable costs, and allowed 6 months to pay the fine and costs.
Legal Topics
['tree Preservation Order' 'unauthorised Removal of Tree' 'sentencing for Environmental Offence' 'fine' 'prosecution Costs']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Sentencing' 'costs'] ['tree Preservation Order' 'unauthorised Removal of Tree' 'sentencing for Environmental Offence' 'fine' 'prosecution 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

Prosecution for an Offence Against S.125 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Involving Contravention of a Tree Preservation Order / Penalty and Costs After Finding of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalty should be imposed for contravention of a tree preservation order.' "Whether the Defendant's status as a tree lopping contractor mitigated the offence." 'Whether an order to plant and maintain new trees under s.126(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was appropriate.' 'Whether the Prosecutor should receive costs of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

A conviction and substantial penalty were warranted because of the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the Defendant's criminal and moral responsibility, and his three prior Local Court convictions for offences against tree preservation orders. His status as a hired tree lopping contractor did not mitigate the offence, and a s.126(3) planting order was inappropriate because he did not own the property and the Prosecutor did not seek that penalty. The Prosecutor was entitled to costs because the prosecution was properly brought in this Court with Ministerial consent and concerned a substantial tree in a prominent foreshore location cut down by an experienced...

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted, fined $5,000, ordered to pay the Prosecutor's reasonable costs, and allowed 6 months to pay the fine and costs.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant is convicted of the offence charged.' 'The Defendant is fined the sum of $5,000, such fine to be paid to the Warringah Shire Council in accordance with s.640 of the Local Government Act 1919 within a period of 6 months.' "The Defendant is to pay the Prosecutor's reasonable costs, such costs to be as...