Hornsby Shire Council v Moit [2001] NSWLEC 50

Hornsby Shire Council v Moit [2001] NSWLEC 50

The defendant admitted the essential elements of both offences: the tree preservation order was duly made, forty-nine protected trees were removed or destroyed without council consent, and the clearing was development carried out without development consent. Given the potential environmental harm, the defendant's earthmoving business and knowledge that consent was required, deterrence and proportionality required a substantial penalty; because the two offences arose from one incident and the defendant pleaded guilty relatively early, a combined penalty of $50,000 was reduced to $40,000, with remediation ordered under s 126(3).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Environmental Offences Prosecution / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted on both offences, fined a total of $40,000, ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs, and ordered to carry out remediation works.
Legal Topics
['breach of Tree Preservation Order' 'development Without Consent' 'removal or Destruction of Trees' 'environmental Harm' 'remediation Orders' 'penalty']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'sentencing'] ['breach of Tree Preservation Order' 'development Without Consent' 'removal or Destruction of Trees' 'environmental Harm' 'remediation Orders' 'penalty']

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

Environmental Offences Prosecution / Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant committed offences against section 125 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by removing or wilfully destroying trees covered by a tree preservation order without consent and by carrying out development without consent.' 'What penalty and remediation orders should be imposed for the two offences arising from the same incident.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant admitted the essential elements of both offences: the tree preservation order was duly made, forty-nine protected trees were removed or destroyed without council consent, and the clearing was development carried out without development consent. Given the potential environmental harm, the defendant's earthmoving business and knowledge that consent was required, deterrence and proportionality required a substantial penalty; because the two offences arose from one incident and the defendant pleaded guilty relatively early, a combined penalty of $50,000 was reduced to $40,000, with remediation ordered under s 126(3).

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted on both offences, fined a total of $40,000, ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs, and ordered to carry out remediation works.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings No. 50023 of 2000, the defendant is convicted of the offence as charged.' 'In proceedings No. 50023 of 2000, the defendant is fined a penalty in the sum of $27,000.00.' "In proceedings No. 50023 of 2000, the defendant is ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs in accordance with section 52(2) of the...