CITY OF CHARLES STURT v CICCHIELLO [2007] SAERDC 69 (13 December 2007)

Last Updated: 17 December 2007

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

CITY OF CHARLES STURT v CICCHIELLO

[2007] SAERDC 69

Reasons for Penalty Delivered by Her Honour Judge Cole

13 December 2007

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Defendant charged on complaint with an offence pursuant to s 44(1) of the Development Act 1993 - tree damaging activity - defendant pleaded guilty - conviction entered against defendant - fine in the sum of $6,800 imposed with a victims of crime levy of $70 - costs awarded.

Development Act 1993 s 44(1), referred to.

CITY OF CHARLES STURT v CICCHIELLO
[2007] SAERDC 69

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR PENALTY:

1	Mr Bruno Cicchiello was charged on complaint with undertaking tree damaging activity contrary to s 44(1) of the Development Act 1993. Mr Cicchiello pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted.
2	Mr Cicchiello is the proprietor of a business which undertakes tree lopping. The business was engaged by Colossus Developments Pty Ltd to undertake some work at 69 Wilpena Terrace Kilkenny ("the land"). On 14 December 2006, employees of the business, at Mr Cicchiello’s direction, severely lopped a mature Eucalyptus nicholii ("the tree") on the land. The tree was approximately 2.24 metres in circumference at the point 1 metre above natural ground level, and it had a crown diameter of 12 metres and a height of 15 metres. It was in good health, and made a positive contribution to the amenity of the locality.
3	Mr Cicchiello knew that the tree was a significant tree, and he knew that no application had been made to damage or remove it. He knew that such approval was required by law. Nevertheless, he chose to direct his employees to lop it severely.
4	Mr Lawry, the significant tree assessment officer for the City of Charles Sturt, examined the tree after the lopping. He formed the opinion that the tree had no prospect of regaining its shape and, further, that it was likely to pose a hazard if it survived because epicormic shoots would mature into branches which were liable to drop. In his opinion, the tree must be removed.
5	The total price quoted for the work to be done by Mr Cicchiello’s business on the land was $1,200 plus the goods and services tax. This amount was paid to Mr Cicchiello by Colossus Pty Ltd.
6	Mr Cicchiello is in the business of removing vegetation. It is important that he comes to understand that he has an obligation to obey the law. I bear in mind, in imposing a penalty, the principles of specific and general deterrence. I note that the tree was of some aesthetic value. There is no suggestion that it was of particular value as habitat.
7	The maximum fine for an offence against s 44(1) was, at the time of the offence, $30,000. I impose a fine of $8,000. I reduce that by 15% on account of a relatively early plea of guilty and a reasonably high level of co-operation with the investigation. The resultant fine is $6,800. There will be a victims of crime levy of $70. The defendant is to pay the sum of $2,000 to the prosecution on account of costs.