Burwood Council v Abdul-Rahman [2017] NSWLEC 103

Development consent was required for removal of the tree; the defendant admitted authorising the removal without such consent; relying on arborist advice and belief the tree was dead did not provide a lawful excuse.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 August 2017
Procedural Posture: Criminal (prosecution for Planning Offence) / Conviction (sentencing Deferred)
Outcome: Convicted (offence proved)
Legal Topics: ['development Consent' 'heritage Conservation' 'tree Removal' 'aiding and Abetting']

['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'criminal Law'] ['development Consent' 'heritage Conservation' 'tree Removal' 'aiding and Abetting']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal (prosecution for Planning Offence) / Conviction (sentencing Deferred)

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether defendant committed an offence by authorising removal of a tree without development consent in a heritage conservation area under the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Convicted (offence proved)

Orders

['Defendant convicted of offence as charged' 'Matter set down for sentencing hearing on 4 December 2017']