Australia, June 18 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 19:

1. By 20 summonses filed 14 June 2022 by the Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment, now known as the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water ('prosecutor'), Aerotropolis Pty Ltd ('defendant') stands charged with 20 offences against the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) ('NPW Act') and the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) ('BC Act') relating to the alleged clearing of native vegetation from a property located at 203 Greendale Road, Bringelly ('property') during the period from 10 April 2016 to 28 May 2020.

2. In summary, there are broadly three categories of offence relevant to each of seven charge periods. First, harming or picking plants, namely, the critically endangered ecological community ('EEC') Cumberland Plain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion ('CPW'); second, damaging the habitat of an EEC, namely, CPW; and third, damaging the habitat of the Cumberland Plain land snail Meridolum corneovirens ('land snail'), a threatened species, which occurred by reason of the destruction of CPW, which is the primary habitat of the land snail.

3. It is the prosecutor's case that the defendant removed vegetation covering 36.8ha of CPW over approximately four years and one month at the property, which was approximately 121.12ha. The clearing was carried out by an employee of the defendant who was directed to do so by a director of the defendant.

4. On 19 August 2024, the defendant's sole shareholder passed a resolution for the voluntary winding up of the defendant and appointed a liquidator. The appointment was initiated by the defendant's directors and shareholder on the basis that the defendant was unable to pay all its creditors in full. The liquidator informed the Court that he did not propose to take part in the proceedings, and therefore did not defend the charges on the defendant's behalf at the hearing which proceeded on 17 December 2024.

5. For the reasons that follow, I find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the 20 offences as charged and that each matter is to be stood over to 23 May 2025 for directions in relation to sentencing.

Structure of judgment

6. This judgment is structured as follows. I will first provide a precis of the facts that led to the liquidator's position of not defending the charges. I will then detail the charges, note the statutory framework, and record the elements of each charge and the possible defences. Then, I will provide an overview of the evidence relied upon by the prosecutor including the expert remote sensing and ecological evidence, before dealing with the specific evidence relating to each charge. While I remain conscious that there are 20 discrete offences under consideration, there is a significant factual commonality between the offences in relation to conduct, expert evidence, corporate knowledge and possible defences. As such, to reduce unnecessary repetition, I will make certain primary findings that will be adopted in my consideration of later offences.

7. It is a requirement of a judgment such as this to set out the principles of law that are to be applied. I will do so with as much brevity as is possible. The prosecutor bears the onus of establishing the guilt of the defendant in relation to each charge beyond reasonable doubt. Those words have their ordinary meaning. The matters that the prosecutor needs to establish are the elements of each charge. However, despite the matters proceeding in the absence of the defendant, the prosecutor is not required to prove the truth and reliability of every likely disputed fact or to answer every question that might otherwise be posed concerning the evidence in each case.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196e65938e0271e1bb2c96e8)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.