Chamdal, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1384 (03 November 2025)
The fine of £200,000 was not manifestly excessive given the scale of harm (felling of 132 protected trees), the appellant's negligent culpability, his substantial means, and the need for deterrence in environmental offences. Disparity with fines imposed on arborists was justified by differences in culpability, harm, and means.
- Citation
- [2025] EWCA Crim 1384
- Parties
- Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Sukh Chamdal
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 03 November 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Tree Preservation Orders, Sentencing, Strict Liability, Environmental Offences, Amenity Value, Mitigation, Financial Benefit, Disparity in Sentencing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Respondent
Sukh Chamdal
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the fine imposed for breach of a tree preservation order was manifestly excessive
- 2 Appropriate assessment of culpability and harm in strict liability environmental offences
- 3 Relevance of disparity between sentences for principal and contractors
Ratio Decidendi
The fine of £200,000 was not manifestly excessive given the scale of harm (felling of 132 protected trees), the appellant's negligent culpability, his substantial means, and the need for deterrence in environmental offences. Disparity with fines imposed on arborists was justified by differences in culpability, harm, and means.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
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