R v Sukh Chamdal

R v Sukh Chamdal

The fine of £200,000 imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive, given the negligent culpability, substantial harm caused by the felling of 132 protected trees, the appellant's wealth, and the need for deterrence. The circumstances justified a higher fine than those imposed on the arborists, and there was no unjustified disparity.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Sukh Chamdal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Sentencing, Strict Liability, Amenity Value, Culpability Assessment
Criminal Law Environmental Law Planning Law Tree Preservation Orders Sentencing Strict Liability Amenity Value Culpability Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Sukh Chamdal

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the fine imposed on the appellant manifestly excessive?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate assessment of culpability and harm in strict liability offences under s.210(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990?
  3. 3 Is there unjustified disparity between the fine imposed on the appellant and the fines imposed on the arborists?

Ratio Decidendi

The fine of £200,000 imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive, given the negligent culpability, substantial harm caused by the felling of 132 protected trees, the appellant's wealth, and the need for deterrence. The circumstances justified a higher fine than those imposed on the arborists, and there was no unjustified disparity.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
  • The fine of £200,000 imposed by the Crown Court stands.