Holroyd City Council v Skyton Developments Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 32

Holroyd City Council v Skyton Developments Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 32

The defendant pleaded guilty to removing two protected trees without first obtaining the prosecutor's written consent, contrary to cl 4 of the Tree Preservation Order and s 125 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The offence was one of strict liability, no evidentiary basis sustained an honest and reasonable mistake defence, and the seriousness of breaching a Tree Preservation Order meant that s 10 relief was not warranted. An appropriate penalty of $20,000 was reduced by 25% for the early guilty plea, resulting in a $15,000 penalty, conviction, and costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for an Offence Against S 125 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 for Breach of a Tree Preservation Order / Sentence After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant convicted and fined $15,000; defendant ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs; exhibits returned.
Legal Topics
['tree Preservation Order' 'strict Liability Offence' 'removal of Protected Trees Without Consent' 'section 10 Dismissal Application' 'penalty Assessment' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'local Government Enforcement' 'criminal Sentencing'] ['tree Preservation Order' 'strict Liability Offence' 'removal of Protected Trees Without Consent' 'section 10 Dismissal Application' 'penalty Assessment' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 & Assessment Act 1979 for Breach of a Tree Preservation Order / Sentence After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant committed an offence against s 125 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 by removing trees contrary to cl 4 of the Tree Preservation Order.' 'Whether the matter should be dealt with under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'What penalty should be imposed for the offence, including whether deterrence and a guilty plea discount should be reflected.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant pleaded guilty to removing two protected trees without first obtaining the prosecutor's written consent, contrary to cl 4 of the Tree Preservation Order and s 125 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The offence was one of strict liability, no evidentiary basis sustained an honest and reasonable mistake defence, and the seriousness of breaching a Tree Preservation Order meant that s 10 relief was not warranted. An appropriate penalty of $20,000 was reduced by 25% for the early guilty plea, resulting in a $15,000 penalty, conviction, and costs order.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and fined $15,000; defendant ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs; exhibits returned.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is convicted of the offence charged.' 'A penalty of $15,000.00 is imposed in respect of the conviction.' "The defendant pay the prosecutor's costs." 'Exhibits be returned.']