You are here:
You are here: You are here: Publications 
RMA A Study into the use of Prosecutions under the Resource Management Act 1991 Online version
Appendix 4: Appeals Against Sentence for the Third Period
| Case | Brief details | District Court | High Court | Court of Appeal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Papakura District Council v Arthur Rutherford 109 | Defendant had stored car wrecks and other material in an area defined in Council plan as a Flood Hazard Area. Council laid 165 charges. Council and defendant subsequently agreed that if defendant undertook work to comply with Plan then Council would withdraw all but one charge and consent to appellant being discharged without conviction. | District Court convicted defendant and ordered payment of costs of $342. | Defendant appealed against decision to convict. High Court treated appeal as appeal against both conviction and sentence. High Court dismissed the appeal. | |
| 2 | Rodney District Council v Josh Tupou and Sam Wong 110 | Guilty plea. Destruction of trees. Tupou was instructed by Wong to do work. Tupou felled 58 protected trees in 800 m2 area. | District Court convicted both defendants, sentenced Wong to 300 hours community work, ordered him to pay Council $12,000 for restoration work and $2,500 for costs of prosecution; and sentenced Tupou to 200 hours community work ordered him to pay Council $2,500 for restoration work and $1,000 for costs of prosecution. | Defendants appealed against sentence. High Court said it was apparent that District Court favoured a financial penalty over semi-custodial sentence but from information provided it appeared that defendants would not be able to pay fine in addition to reparation. High Court was told that defendants were able to pay a fine. High Court vacated both sentences of community work and fined Wong $12,500 and Tupou $2,500. Payment for costs was not changed. | |
| 3 | Waimakariri District Council v Roger Gordon Palmer 111 | Not guilty plea. Illegal landfill. | District Court convicted defendant and imposed fine of $2,500 and made enforcement order requiring defendant to spread waste and incorporate into contour of surrounding land. | Defendant appealed against conviction on grounds that materials dumped were not waste and activity was not landfill as defined in Council plan. High Court dismissed appeal against conviction. Defendant also appealed against terms of enforcement order. High Court deleted one word in the enforcement order but otherwise ordered that the terms of the order should stand. | |
| 4 | Waikato Regional Council v Wallace Corporation Ltd 112 | See case 22 of Appendix 3 for more details.Guilty plea. Discharge of odour from abattoir and rendering plant, continuing offence over 12 days. | District Court convicted and imposed fine of $80,000. | Defendant appealed against sentence. High Court reduced fine to $47,000. | |
| 5 | Canterbury Regional Council v Tradewood Shipping Company and Cometa United Corporation 113 | See cases 12 and 18 in Appendix 3 for more details.Not guilty plea. Two offences. Discharge of oil from ship on two occasions on one day. Tradewood was manager of ship. Cometa was the owner of the ship. | District Court convicted and fined Tradewood $35,000 and Cometa $30,750. | Both defendants appealed to High Court against conviction and sentence. Appeal was dismissed. | Both defendants appealed to Court of Appeal against conviction. Appeal was dismissed. |
| 6 | Manukau City Council v Russell Lesley Heenan 114 | Guilty plea. Pruned 13 mature pohutakawa trees on Council reserve so that defendant’s property had unobstructed view of sea, substantial damage. | District Court convicted and imposed fine of $30,000. | Defendant appealed against sentence. High Court dismissed the appeal. | |
| 7 | Canterbury Regional Council v Steelbro New Zealand Ltd 115 | Not guilty plea. Discharge of diesel from Steelbro’s premises in breach of section 15(1)(d). | District Court convicted and fined defendant $10,000 and ordered a reparation payment of $20,000 in clean-up costs to the Council and made an enforcement order for construction of an underground sump to isolate contaminants at a cost of $16,000. | Council appealed against sentence. High Court held that the basic approach of the District Court to the sentencing exercise was misplaced and that it had erred in reducing the reparation figure sought by the Council of $44,656, a figure which had already been significantly discounted. The High Court increased the reparation from $20,000 to $44,656 but did not increase the fine. | |
| 8 | Southland Regional Council v Sandstone Dairy Ltd 116 | See case 8 of Appendix 3 for more details.Not guilty plea. Discharge of dairy effluent in breach of section 15(1)(b) on three dates. | District Court convicted and fined defendants $60,000. | Defendant appealed conviction and sentence. Appeal against conviction dismissed. Appeal against sentence successful. Fines reduced from $60,000 to $40,000. | |
| 9 | Waikato Regional Council v Plateau Farms Ltd 117 | See case 13 of Appendix 3 for more details.Guilty plea. One representative charge for discharge of dairy effluent in breach of section 15(1)(b), discharge to groundwater over period of more than one month. | District Court convicted and fined defendant $35,000 and ordered payment of solicitor's costs according to scale under the Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations. | Defendant appealed against sentence. High Court dismissed appeal but allowed appeal against costs award in part. | |
| 10 | Marlborough District Council v TL & NL Bryant Holdings Ltd 118 | Not guilty plea. Construction of substantial stopbank.Two charges – contravention of section 9 and attempted contravention of section 14. | Convicted. Deliberate offending. Fined $10,000 on each charge. | Defendant appealed conviction and sentence.The Court directed the information should be reheard in the District Court.The Court found that the fines were not manifestly excessive. |
109 22/07/2005, Allan J, HC Auckland, CRI 2005-404-162.
110 5/08/2005, Harrison J, HC Auckland, CRI-2005-404-146.
111 17/10/2005, Panckhurst J, HC Christchurch, CRI 2005-409-000105. Note the District Court decision was on 15/04/2005 which is before the third period. This case has been included in this report because the High Court decision is within the third period.
112 8/06/06, France J, HC Auckland, CRI 2006-404-26.
113 14/06/2006, Judge Smith, DC Christchurch, CRN 05009502106, 107, 103, 104. 6/10/2006, Fogarty J, HC Christchurch, CRI 2006-409-000128. CA168/07 [2007] NZCA 560, Arnold, Gendall and Priestley JJ.
114 13/02/2006, Judge McElrea, DC Auckland CRN 5092501702. 10/08/2006, Priestley J, HC Auckland, CRI 2006-404-069.
115 1/11/2006, Judge Smith, DC Christchurch, CRN 05009503624 and 25. 28/02/2007, Panckhurst J, HC Christchurch, CRI 2006-409-000232.
116 14/12/2006, Judge Smith, DC Invercargill, CRN 06017500043, 44 and 91. 15/05/2007, Fogarty J, HC Invercargill, CRI 2007-425-000001.
117 25/01/2007, Judge Thompson, DC Rotorua, CRI – 2005-069-2345. Appeal – 17/09/07, Stevens J, HC Rotorua, CRI2007-463-000016.
118 25/01/2008, Judge Thompson, DC Blenheim, CRI-2007-006-001041. Appeal – 16/06/2008, Clifford J, HC Blenheim, CRI-2008-406-3.
