Tree-trimming duo appeal fines
A Taranaki woman fined for her part in the trimming of a 100-yearold protected tree has successfully appealed her sentence.
But her father, who physically cut back the Moreton Bay fig, saw his appeal dismissed.
Earlier this year in the New Plymouth District Court, Amie Cowley was fined $7275 for her part in the removal of the branches, while her father, Peter Cowley, was fined $9166.50.
They both appealed the fines, arguing they were ‘‘manifestly excessive’’.
In February 2018, Peter, with the help of two men, used a chainsaw to trim the fig tree that overhung Amie’s property on Clinton
St, Fitzroy, in New Plymouth. Amie was aware and allowed it to happen despite having had conversations with the New Plymouth District Council about the tree, its protected status and the rules around trimming it.
The single tree, which stands on a private Paynters Ave section and was about 20 metres tall and 30m wide, is classified as a category-two notable tree under the New Plymouth District Plan.
The maintenance they sought could only be permitted by the district council or an approved contractor.
At sentencing, it was argued on behalf of the council that the offending was premeditated and that the Cowleys may not be remorseful.
The tree was left misshapen and there were risks of it suffering physiological stress, it was argued.
Defence lawyer Nathan Bourke said Amie wanted the tree pruned because she was concerned at the danger created, in particular for her young son, by branches falling on her property in windy conditions.
She became frustrated at the delays in progressing issues constructively with the council. However, the work was then initiated by her father without discussion with her, it was argued.
At sentencing, the judge considered that the premeditation displayed by Peter, who told a council officer he ‘‘gave himself permission to cut the tree’’ and ‘‘the council have no money or balls to bring him to court’’, warranted an uplift in the fine imposed.
The judge took a starting point of $25,000 and then gave discounts to both Amie and Peter for their lack of previous convictions and for their early guilty pleas.
A combined fine of $18,733.50 was imposed – with Amie being responsible for $7275 and Peter for $9166.50.
In the High Court judgment released late last month, Justice Robert Dobson ruled that the district court judge’s starting point was too high. Justice Dobson set a new starting figure of $20,000 for the total fines.
He also said the judge’s assessment of Amie’s mitigating factors at sentencing was ‘‘inadequate’’ and awarded her a further discount. He overturned Amie’s previous fine and imposed one of $4502.25; however, Peter faced a small increase as he was responsible for two-thirds of the fine.
Justice Dobson dismissed Peter’s appeal and let the old fine stand.