Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind.

derwoodii · 14th February 2011, 07:41 PM

A recent case which 30 trees were poisoned on private land and a charge of $40 000 issued against the owner of the land.

Interesting case as the Magistrate ruled that the prosecution does not have to demonstrate any knowledge by the Defendant of the activities that breached the planning scheme.

Eric Frei · 14th February 2011, 07:47 PM

Probably why the term Kangaroo Court is so Australian.... not much has changed since the Chamberlains eh.

Industrial sabotage wasn't ruled out and certainly with this type of ruling it's viable for competitive developers to target rival sites for tree deaths.

derwoodii · 15th February 2011, 05:38 AM

Yes, while remote and unlikely are sabotage actions, its not unprecedented and so not beyond reasonable doubt. Hmm Orwell's thought police are gettin a bit closer.

Darrell Mcleod · 15th February 2011, 02:12 PM

And so in the end

13. I find, therefore, that the Prosecution does not have to demonstrate any knowledge by the Defendent of the activities that breached the planning scheme.

This is very tough

Could we say this essentially means; if it is your land and for whatever reason a planning sceme is breached you are guilty?

Apocalypsse · 16th February 2011, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruisin_long

And so in the end

13. I find, therefore, that the Prosecution does not have to demonstrate any knowledge by the Defendent of the activities that breached the planning scheme.

This is very tough

Could we say this essentially means; if it is your land and for whatever reason a planning sceme is breached you are guilty?

Sounds like they are trying to work off the back of the laws that if someone injures themselves on your property through she idiocy then you are liable for damages.

Darrell Mcleod · 16th February 2011, 09:41 PM

Maybe - but also are they trying to work the ‘law’ of – we think maybe you did it and therefore we will get you anyway

I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this country

Not so it seems

Just by the way if the developer did it probably he should have been fined more

So does it cut both ways?

derwoodii · 17th February 2011, 05:47 AM

In certain courts and me thinks, civil case law. Judges can use the Balance of Probability to decide a verdict.
But then so much falls on the judge to make the correct decision. If he likes or don't likes trees is how he'll see the case.

Jeff Darby · 17th February 2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derwoodii

In certain courts and me thinks, civil case law. Judges can use the Balance of Probability to decide a verdict.
But then so much falls on the judge to make the correct decision. If he likes or don't likes trees is how he'll see the case.

Quote:

If he likes or don't likes trees is how he'll see the case.

If a judge can not keep his personal opinions out of his or her decision/judgment, rulings, thens its time to recuse him or herself from the case.

derwoodii · 17th February 2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayD

If a judge can not keep his personal opinions out of his or her decision/judgment, rulings, thens its time to recuse him or herself from the case.

Oh yes sure they should but, my last case caught on site with tree contractor he admitted to the act of removing 2 protected trees under planning control.

Fine listed was up to $120K plus

he got
$2000 grand no conviction.

he made an easy $500,000 from subdividing the block

Impartial sigh.......

Jeff Darby · 17th February 2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derwoodii

Oh yes sure they should but, my last case caught on site with tree contractor he admitted to the act of removing 2 protected trees under planning control.

Fine listed was up to $120K plus

he got
$2000 grand no conviction.

he made an easy $500,000 from subdividing the block

Impartial sigh.......

Hey I hear you, they laugh all the way to the bank.

Eric Frei · 18th February 2011, 07:04 AM

Sometimes it's more economical to ask for forgiveness than permission.

14th February 2011, 07:47 PM	#2
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,983	Re: Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind. Probably why the term Kangaroo Court is so Australian.... not much has changed since the Chamberlains eh. Industrial sabotage wasn't ruled out and certainly with this type of ruling it's viable for competitive developers to target rival sites for tree deaths. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

15th February 2011, 05:38 AM	#3
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind. Yes, while remote and unlikely are sabotage actions, its not unprecedented and so not beyond reasonable doubt. Hmm Orwell's thought police are gettin a bit closer.

15th February 2011, 02:12 PM	#4
Darrell Mcleod Mature tree Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Victoria Australia Posts: 242	Re: Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind. And so in the end 13. I find, therefore, that the Prosecution does not have to demonstrate any knowledge by the Defendent of the activities that breached the planning scheme. This is very tough Could we say this essentially means; if it is your land and for whatever reason a planning sceme is breached you are guilty?

16th February 2011, 09:41 PM	#6
Darrell Mcleod Mature tree Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Victoria Australia Posts: 242	Re: Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind. Maybe - but also are they trying to work the ‘law’ of – we think maybe you did it and therefore we will get you anyway I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in this country Not so it seems Just by the way if the developer did it probably he should have been fined more So does it cut both ways?

17th February 2011, 05:47 AM	#7
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind. In certain courts and me thinks, civil case law. Judges can use the Balance of Probability to decide a verdict. But then so much falls on the judge to make the correct decision. If he likes or don't likes trees is how he'll see the case.

18th February 2011, 07:04 AM	#11
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,983	Re: Dead trees need no Proof just "Mens rea" a guilty mind. Sometimes it's more economical to ask for forgiveness than permission. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stihl 12" 16" 28" Oregon 16" chainsaw chains for sale	delusionracer	Chainsaws	1	2nd August 2011 10:19 AM
Kiwi Rata raid by boat\| "we're pissed off" says park manager	Eric Frei	ANNOUNCEMENTS	8	11th August 2009 06:47 PM
Council Grove Kansas "Post Office" Bur Oak Removed	TreeBot	The Video Forum	8	17th November 2008 06:51 AM
Dead Wood to a Min. 40mm (1.5") ?	Knotahippie	Tree Information and Facts	11	15th September 2008 05:53 PM
Do trees get "Cancer"	playfordtree	Ask an Arborist here	19	22nd March 2008 02:46 AM