Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation v Warroo (Lands) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 10
The defendant, through its director, cleared 329 hectares of native vegetation without the required development consent and was guilty of the offence. Although the clearing was substantial, the Court accepted that the environmental impact was minor, the land was degraded and affected by noxious weeds, and the defendant's circumstances and costs exposure mitigated penalty. General deterrence still required a conviction and fine because consent was required and was not obtained. The evidence did not justify a restoration or management order under s 126(3), and s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 was not appropriate.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Prosecution for an Environmental Planning Offence Under S 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Sentence After the Defendant Changed Its Plea to Guilty Following Amendment of the Summons
- Outcome
- Defendant convicted and fined $2,500; prosecutor's costs ordered; no order made under s 126(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
- Legal Topics
- ['clearing Native Vegetation Without Development Consent' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 46 Protection and Management of Native Vegetation' 'noxious Weeds' 'sentencing for Environmental Offences' 'restoration Orders' 'costs']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for an Environmental Planning Offence Under S 125(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Sentence After the Defendant Changed Its Plea to Guilty Following Amendment of the Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the defendant committed an offence by clearing native vegetation without development consent required by SEPP 46 and s 76(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.' 'What penalty should be imposed for the offence, having regard to the seriousness of the clearing, environmental harm, guilty plea, remorse, costs exposure and deterrence.' 'Whether an order should be made under s 126(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for restoration or management of the cleared area.' 'Whether s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 should be applied notwithstanding conviction for the offence.']
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant, through its director, cleared 329 hectares of native vegetation without the required development consent and was guilty of the offence. Although the clearing was substantial, the Court accepted that the environmental impact was minor, the land was degraded and affected by noxious weeds, and the defendant's circumstances and costs exposure mitigated penalty. General deterrence still required a conviction and fine because consent was required and was not obtained. The evidence did not justify a restoration or management order under s 126(3), and s 556A of the Crimes Act 1900 was not appropriate.
Court Disposition
Defendant convicted and fined $2,500; prosecutor's costs ordered; no order made under s 126(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Orders
- ['The defendant is convicted of the offence set out in the amended summons.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $2,500.' 'The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the prosecutor as agreed or, if there is no agreement, as assessed in accordance with s 52 of the Court Act and the Regulation.'...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment