Bentley (Prosecutor) v. Gordon (Defendant) Pays/Territoire Australie Type de cour Autres Date Nov 22, 2005 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Land and Environment Court of New South Wales Juge Preston Numéro de référence 50070 of 2005 Langue Anglais Sujet Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes Mot clé Infractions/sanctions Espèces végétales protégées Résumé Between 1 August 2001 and 7 December 2001 the defendant, Hugh Charles Gordon, slashed, cleared and excavated land at Redhead in the local government area of Lake Macquarie. In doing so, he destroyed and damaged numerous plants of the vulnerable species Tetratheca juncea. This plant had been listed as a vulnerable species under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (“the TSC Act”). The defendant had been charged with picking a threatened species contrary to s 118 A(2) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (“the NPW Act”). The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge. The Court’s task was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s crimes. The court emphasized that the sentence had to serve as a public deterrence. It was the duty of the court to see that the sentence which was imposed would operate as a powerful factor in preventing the commission of similar crimes by those who might otherwise be tempted by the prospect that only light punishment would be imposed. This factor was particularly relevant to environmental offences. Persons would not be deterred from committing environmental offences by nominal fines. The Court in order to determine the appropriate sentence had to determine the facts for the purpose of sentencing, the criminality and culpability of the defendant and the nature and characteristics of the defendant. In this connection the court analyzed the seriousness of the environmental harm. In environmental matters the Court had previously exercised its discretion in relation to penalty on the principle that the more serious the lasting environmental harm involved the more serious the offence and, ordinarily, the higher the penalty. If the harm was substantial, this objective circumstance was an aggravating factor. It was a factor to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The court examined, inter alia, the direct damage, the fragmentation caused by the picking of the plants and edge effects in form of changed environmental conditions due to the clearing of the site. Finally, it analyzed the defendant’s state of mind. Accordingly, having regard to both the objective circumstances of the crime and the subjective circumstances of the defendant, the court held that the appropriate sentence was a fine in the amount of $30,000. Texte intégral 695.html Références Cites Axer Pty Ltd v. Environment Protection Authority Jurisprudence | Nationale - cour supérieure | Australie | Nov 22, 1993 Mot clé: Infractions/sanctions, Pesticides, Substances dangereuses Source: UNEP, InforMEA