Court rejects expert witness arborist evidence Brisbane

Eric Frei · 4th May 2010, 08:43 PM

An interesting case, Arborist Fletcher was representing BCC and the govt in a court case but got the DBH of the tree wrong. Read the attached PDF of the case.

It starts at [37] on page 9, and it is very interesting to read. This is the real deal, ever wondered what goes on? Well read it. And as the arborist did not accept the error his work got rejected.

Quote:

[44] On page 3 of his report, Mr Fletcher refers to the White Fig tree as having a trunk diameter of 12m. Mr Fletcher gave oral evidence before the Court. His evidence followed that of Mr Morris, and Mr Fletcher was in Court and heard Mr Morris’ evidence, specifically Mr Morris’ direct challenge that the diameter of the tree in question was no where near 12m in diameter. Despite hearing the evidence of Mr Morris and despite numerous opportunities for him to correct his report, Mr Fletcher doggedly during evidence-in-chief maintained that the diameter of the White Fig tree is 12m.18 Mr Fletcher explained his manner of measuring the trunk diameter by using a “DBH tape” which is a ‘diameter at breast height’ tape.19

[45] Put simply, and perhaps at its highest, Mr Fletcher’s unswerving evidence was that he used the measuring tape correctly; it gave him a reading of 12m as the diameter of the relevant tree; he had 13 years experience in using the DBH tape; and the reading of the tape was correct and the diameter of the tree was 12m.

[46] Not surprisingly, the issue of the diameter of the tree was subject to rigorous cross-examination of Mr Fletcher by Mr Barlow. Mr Barlow pointed out to Mr Fletcher the difference between circumference and diameter, which Mr Fletcher clearly understood.20 When asked if the Court would view a trunk diameter of 12m when viewing the property, Mr Fletcher was forthright in his reply, stating “absolutely”.21 Even after Mr Barlow took Mr Fletcher to the length of the hearing room which he estimated at about 12m,22 and although Mr Fletcher conceded that the diameter of the tree in question was not as big as the length of the Court room, nor indeed anywhere near that big, he nonetheless did not fall from his expert view that the diameter of the tree was 12m. I will let Mr Fletcher’s evidence speak for itself:23

“I’m saying to you now that roughly 12 metres extends from that wall to that wall, the length of the room, roughly, not to the nearest centimetre or anything like that, it’s a very rough guess?—It is not that big.
Not anywhere near that big is it?—No.
Might it be that you have confused circumference with diameter?—I just do what the tape tells me. I make a measurement and that’s what the tape presents itself. I don’t argue, it’s an industry tape which is sold as a diameter at breast height tape.
Despite enumerating your credentials, your degrees, before the court this morning you don’t make use your own mind to sort of estimate whether what the tape is telling you is correct or incorrect?—I’ve been using the tape for 13 years and it’s always been correct in my eyes.
But we’re not going to see a tree it seems for that length when we go up there this afternoon are we?—No.”

[47] In my view, Mr Fletcher was the only person present in Court who failed to see the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’. One does not need to be an expert, nor to have a degree in mathematics, to accept that the diameter of the tree cannot be, and is not, 12m, but is more likely of a diameter of approximately 3.5m, and that the measurement which Mr Fletcher has provided equates, at least roughly or perhaps exactly, to the circumference of the tree and not the diameter. The simple mathematical equation of 2пr shows the folly in Mr Fletcher’s evidence, which tragically, as indicated, was evident to all present in the hearing room except for Mr Fletcher.

[48] Mr Fletcher’s evidence in this regard cannot be accepted as just a simple mistake. It should have been evident to him at the time of writing his report that a tree with a diameter of 12m would be surprising to say the least. If the reference to 12m as a diameter in his report failed to get his attention, then Mr Morris’ detailed evidence as to the diameter of both the tree in question and other trees referred to by Mr Fletcher as observed by Mr Morris should have immediately caused Mr Fletcher to correct his obvious and clear mistake. He not only failed to correct that mistake during evidence-in-chief before Mr Isdale, but he was absolute in his categorical denial of Mr Morris’ evidence and the acceptance of his position that the diameter of the tree was 12m. Such is the nature of Mr Fletcher’s evidence with respect to the diameter of the tree that I am unwilling to rely upon any of the evidence Mr Fletcher provided to the Court.

Link to Google street view so you can all see the tree
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&q=Windermere+Road+hamilton&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Windermere+Rd,+Hamilton+Queensland+4007&ll=-27.434461,153.059464&spn=0.012093,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-27.434373,153.059482&panoid=OrNOB4LTe1w6lHMZu5jm1A&cbp=12,107.65,,0,-12.76

Garry Brockley · 4th May 2010, 08:47 PM

Thats incredible! the thought that such a highly revered Arb forgot to check his measurements before submitting it to a court in unbelievable, there's a mistake he wont be making again in a hurry. wow!

Eric Frei · 4th May 2010, 08:50 PM

I think this says it all.

Lesson is, if you screw up, own up!

Quote:

[47] In my view, Mr Fletcher was the only person present in Court who failed to see the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’. One does not need to be an expert, nor to have a degree in mathematics, to accept that the diameter of the tree cannot be, and is not, 12m, but is more likely of a diameter of approximately 3.5m, and that the measurement which Mr Fletcher has provided equates, at least roughly or perhaps exactly, to the circumference of the tree and not the diameter. The simple mathematical equation of 2пr shows the folly in Mr Fletcher’s evidence, which tragically, as indicated, was evident to all present in the hearing room except for Mr Fletcher.

Jeff Darby · 4th May 2010, 09:44 PM

What sad case for arborists, Was it arrogance or stage shock of the hot seat he could not handle.

However let this be a lesson for all out there be precise and methodical in your assessment of the the tree in question and accurate in your report or end up looking like an ass

Done it · 4th May 2010, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

Link to Google street view so you can all see the tree
Windermere Road hamilton - Google Maps

Not real clear but I think he left out a decimal point, looks more like 1.2m at breast height.

"Been using that tape for 13 years"

Sure makes you wonder what's happened in those years.

Apocalypsse · 4th May 2010, 11:17 PM

With the way they ask questions in court it would have me thinking Donkey Kong instead of DBH.

Jeff Darby · 4th May 2010, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypsse

With the way they ask questions in court it would have me thinking Donkey Kong instead of DBH.

lol...I can understand that..it's not easy in the hot seat...under pressure.

sueann · 4th May 2010, 11:57 PM

If his tape was 13 years old, maybe he needs a new one?

Done it · 5th May 2010, 11:51 PM

I don't know anything about him, but I've been thinking about it.

Years ago I was given this advice if going to court: Deny, deny, deny.

Got me thinking, and I remembered this,

"In politics... never retreat, never retract... never admit a mistake."

I think he knew what he was doing.

4th May 2010, 08:47 PM	#2
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,649	Re: Court rejects expert witness arborist evidence Brisbane Thats incredible! the thought that such a highly revered Arb forgot to check his measurements before submitting it to a court in unbelievable, there's a mistake he wont be making again in a hurry. wow! __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

4th May 2010, 09:44 PM	#4
Jeff Darby Moderator - Previously known as JayD Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: TreeWorld, Sydney Australia Posts: 2,025	Re: Court rejects expert witness arborist evidence Brisbane What sad case for arborists, Was it arrogance or stage shock of the hot seat he could not handle. However let this be a lesson for all out there be precise and methodical in your assessment of the the tree in question and accurate in your report or end up looking like an ass __________________ Member: Australian Tree Association Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard ! Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others © Jeffrey J Darby 2011

4th May 2010, 11:17 PM	#6
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,154	Re: Court rejects expert witness arborist evidence Brisbane With the way they ask questions in court it would have me thinking Donkey Kong instead of DBH.

4th May 2010, 11:57 PM	#8
sueann Former Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Hunter Valley Australia Posts: 599	Re: Court rejects expert witness arborist evidence Brisbane If his tape was 13 years old, maybe he needs a new one?

5th May 2010, 11:51 PM	#9
Done it Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Parramatta. Australia. Posts: 784	Re: Court rejects expert witness arborist evidence Brisbane I don't know anything about him, but I've been thinking about it. Years ago I was given this advice if going to court: Deny, deny, deny. Got me thinking, and I remembered this, "In politics... never retreat, never retract... never admit a mistake." I think he knew what he was doing.

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
$210,000 and $17,500 tree fines Byron Bay Court	Eric Frei	ANNOUNCEMENTS	9	8th April 2010 12:27 AM
Beware Expert Village Idiot Drew George Finn\| Dangerous Felling Practices	Eric Frei	ANNOUNCEMENTS	65	9th July 2009 09:21 PM
Need expert opinions	Davidfl941	Ask an Arborist here	18	3rd May 2009 12:50 AM