Coffs Harbour City Council v Michael John Hickey; Coffs Harbour City Council v Marcus Monroe Hickey [2004] NSWLEC 531

Coffs Harbour City Council v Michael John Hickey; Coffs Harbour City Council v Marcus Monroe Hickey [2004] NSWLEC 531

The offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The contractors were independent contractors retained for their expertise, and neither defendant exercised direct or real control over the manner in which the clearing work was performed. Michael John Hickey's instructions to clear weeds, lantana and regrowth did not amount to an express or necessary authorisation to fell the particular trees, and Marcus Monroe Hickey gave no instructions to the contractors. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that either defendant caused the seventeen trees felled by the contractors to be removed. Although Marcus Monroe Hickey caused the removal of four trees by cutting them down,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Environmental Planning Offences Concerning Removal of Trees Without Development Consent / Judgment After Concurrent Hearing of Not Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt in either case; prosecutor directed to file and serve a draft stated case.
Legal Topics
['tree Preservation Order' 'removal of Trees Without Development Consent' 'vicarious Liability for Independent Contractors' 'causation' 'environmental Planning Offence']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Law'] ['tree Preservation Order' 'removal of Trees Without Development Consent' 'vicarious Liability for Independent Contractors' 'causation' 'environmental Planning Offence']

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 Environmental Planning Offences Concerning Removal of Trees Without Development Consent / Judgment After Concurrent Hearing of Not Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether either defendant was vicariously liable for trees felled by independent contractors or their employees.' 'Whether either defendant directly authorised the felling of trees by instructing contractors to clear weeds, lantana and regrowth.' 'Whether either defendant caused the removal of the trees within the meaning of the alleged offence.' 'Whether Marcus Monroe Hickey breached the tree preservation order by cutting down four trees without development consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The contractors were independent contractors retained for their expertise, and neither defendant exercised direct or real control over the manner in which the clearing work was performed. Michael John Hickey's instructions to clear weeds, lantana and regrowth did not amount to an express or necessary authorisation to fell the particular trees, and Marcus Monroe Hickey gave no instructions to the contractors. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that either defendant caused the seventeen trees felled by the contractors to be removed. Although Marcus Monroe Hickey caused the removal of four trees by cutting them down,...

Court Disposition

Offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt in either case; prosecutor directed to file and serve a draft stated case.

Orders

  • ['The prosecutor is directed to file and serve a draft stated case on or before Wednesday, 20 October 2004.' "Thereafter an appointment to settle the stated case is to be made by arrangement with the judge's associate."]