Miscellaneous
Court filing fees and expenses for witnesses
Prosecutions
Local authorities prosecuting under the RMA are not required to pay a filing fee to the Court – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 s 207(3):
(3) Except as provided in regulations made under this Act, no fee shall be received or demanded from any constable or from any duly appointed officer or employee of the Crown or of any local authority or other statutory public body or Board in respect of proceedings instituted by him in the execution of his duty.
Application for an enforcement order, an interim enforcement order or a declaration
The filing fee for an application for an enforcement order, an interim enforcement order or a declaration is $55 per application. The Resource Management (Forms, Fees and Procedure) Regulations 2003 reg 17(1) provides:
Proceedings are commenced in the Environment Court by –
(a) lodging written notice of the proceedings in accordance with regulation 18; and
(b) paying the filing fee specified in regulation 35
Regulation 35 states:
The filing fee for commencing proceedings is $55.
Application for a stay of abatement notice, appeal against abatement notice
If the recipient of an abatement notice applies for a stay, the filing fee payable to the Environment Court is $55. If the recipient appeals the abatement notice, the filing fee is $55 – Resource Management (Forms, Fees and Procedure) Regulations 2003 reg 17(i) and reg 35.
Allowances and travelling expenses for witnesses
Regulation 21 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees and Procedure) Regulations 2003 provides:
Requirements for serving witness summons. A summons for a person to attend a hearing of a local authority, a consent authority, or the Environment Court must be served–
(a) in accordance with section 352(1) of the Act; and
(b) on form 39 or form 40 as appropriate.
Forms 39 and 40 specify that the witness is entitled to receive witness fees, allowances, and travelling expenses according to the scales prescribed by regulations made under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.
The relevant regulations under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 are the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974. The scale for fees, allowances and travelling expenses are set out in A, B and C of the schedule to the Regulations.
Scale of payments to witnesses and interpreters
A. Fees
1.
(1) To a witness attending to give evidence strictly as an expert, for every day when required to be absent from his or her usual place of business or residence,—
(a) For a period that does not exceed 1 hour, a fee of not less than $16.50 but not more than $68.00:
(b) For a period that exceeds 1 hour but does not exceed 5 hours, the fee prescribed by paragraph (a) of this subclause plus a fee of not less than $9.50 but not more than $48 for each additional hour:
(c) For a period that exceeds 5 hours, a fee of not less than $68.00 but not more than $305.00.
(2) In addition to the fees prescribed by subclause (1) of this clause, there may be paid to an expert witness a qualifying fee for any analysis, preparation of maps, plans, or reports, or other work necessarily undertaken in preparation of evidence, being such sum as the Court or paying officer considers fair and reasonable, but not exceeding $33.00 for the first hour engaged or $24.50 for every subsequent hour engaged.
2. For an interpreter attending to provide an oral translation into English from any other language or from English into any other language, the fee payable for each day on which the interpreter is required to be absent from his or her usual place of residence or business shall be computed at the rate of $25.00 for each hour or part of an hour:
Provided that the fee in respect of any day shall be not less than $75.00 nor more than $175.00.
3. To any other witness, not being a school child or a child under school age,—
(a) For every day when required to be absent from the witness’s usual place of residence or business for a period not exceeding 3 hours $25.00
Provided that the fee prescribed by paragraph (b) of this clause may be allowed in any case where the Court or paying officer is satisfied that the witness, because of attendance at the courthouse, will be absent from his or her work for a full day:
(b) For every day on which attendance is required for a period exceeding 3 hours $50.00
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1(1), clause 2, and clause 3 of this Schedule, if the Court or paying officer is satisfied that the witness or interpreter will suffer a loss of earnings as a result of travelling between his or her usual place of residence or business and the courthouse for the purpose of giving evidence, the Court or paying officer may allow the appropriate fee under those provisions as if that witness or interpreter was in attendance at the courthouse during the time when the witness or interpreter was so travelling.
5. For a written translation of any document into English from any other language or from English into any other language, the fee payable to the interpreter shall be such fee as the Court or paying officer thinks just and reasonable.
B. Allowances
6. To any witness or interpreter who is necessarily absent overnight from his or her usual place of residence—
(a) Where the total period of absence does not exceed 24 hours $55.50
(b) Where the total period of absence exceeds 24 hours, for each 6 hours or part thereof 13.00
7. Where a witness or interpreter is not necessarily absent overnight, the following meal allowances may be paid:
(a) To a witness who is not entitled to fees under any of the provisions of clauses 1 to 4 of this Schedule:
For every day when the witness is able to return to his or her usual place of residence before 7pm $4.50
For every day when the witness is not able to return to his or her usual place of residence before 7pm $7.00
(b) To a witness or an interpreter who is entitled to fees under any of the provisions of clauses 1 to 4 of this Schedule, for every day when the witness or interpreter is not able to return to his or her usual place of residence before 7 pm $7.00
C. Travelling expenses
8. Travelling expenses shall be as follows:
(a) The cost of travelling by such mode and class of public transport as the Court or paying officer considers reasonable having regard to the distance travelled, the age and health of the witness or interpreter, and any other relevant circumstances:
Provided that air fares shall not be allowed unless the Court or paying officer is satisfied that any extra expense occasioned by the use of air transport is justified in all the circumstances:
(b) Where no public conveyance is available, and the distance travelled exceeds 3 kilometres one way, an allowance at the rate of 38c a kilometre:
Provided that, in special circumstances, the Court or paying officer may allow the cost of travelling by taxi:
(c) In any case where a public conveyance is available, an allowance at the rate of 38c a kilometre may be paid to any witness or interpreter using his or her own motor vehicle, or a vehicle hired for his or her personal use, if the total amount of fees, allowances, and expenses payable to that witness or interpreter and any other witnesses or interpreters travelling with that witness or interpreter is not more than the total amount that would have been payable if that witness or interpreter or those witnesses or interpreters had travelled by public conveyance:
(d) A medical practitioner using his or her own motor vehicle or a motor vehicle hired for his or her personal use, whether a public conveyance is available or not, may be paid an allowance at the rate of 38c a kilometre.]
The schedule to the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations also provides for fees for expert witnesses and interpreters. Regulation 37(3) of the Resource Management (Forms) Regulations 1991 stated that the schedule for fees for expert witnesses is not applicable to witnesses giving evidence before the Environment Court. There is no similar provision in the Resource Management (Forms, Fees and Procedure) Regulations 2003. Regulation 8 of the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations provides that a Court may authorise the amounts payable pursuant to the Regulations to be increased where the circumstances are exceptional.
Service of documents
Procedure for service
The procedure for service of documents is set out in s 352 of the RMA.
352. Service of documents—
(1) Where a notice or other document is to be served on a person for the purposes of this Act, it may be served—
(a) By delivering it personally to the person (other than a Minister of the Crown); or
(b) By delivering it at the usual or last known place of residence or business of the person, including by facsimile; or
(c) By sending it by pre-paid post addressed to the person at the usual or last known place of residence or business of the person; or
(ca) Where the person has specified as an address for service a Post Office box address, a document exchange box number, or a facsimile number,—
(i) By posting the document to that Post Office box address; or
(ii) By leaving the document at a document exchange for direction to the document exchange box number; or
(iii) By transmitting the document to that facsimile number; or
(d) By serving it in such other manner as the Environment Court may, on application made to it, direct.
(2) Where a notice or other document is to be served on a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of this Act, service on the chief executive of the appropriate Department of the Public Service in accordance with subsection (1) shall be deemed to be service on the Minister.
(3) Where a notice or other document is to be served on a body (whether incorporated or not) for the purposes of this Act, service on an officer of the body, or on the registered office of the body, in accordance with subsection (1) shall be deemed to be service on the body.
(4) Where a notice or other document is to be served on a partnership for the purposes of this Act, service on any one of the partners in accordance with subsections (1) and (3) shall be deemed to be service on the partnership.
(5) Where a notice or other document is sent by post to a person in accordance with subsection (1)(c) or (ca), it shall be deemed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to be received by the person at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of the post.
Points to watch
Wellington City Council v Taylor
An abatement notice was served on Mr Taylor requiring him to remove material from his property. The charge against Taylor was dismissed because the abatement notice was served by post.
The enforcement officer concerned did not post the abatement notice personally but put it into a tray for posting. Generally, mail was posted daily, but the Council could not prove that the abatement notice went out on the day it was put in the tray, which was 23 April 1996. Taylor said he did not receive the notice until 12 June 1996. He said that between 5 June 1996 and 12 June 1996 he was away in Invercargill at his father’s funeral. When he returned he found the abatement notice, by which time the date of compliance specified in the notice had passed.
Section 352 authorises service by four specific methods. One method is by post. Section 352(5) provides:
Where a notice or other document is sent by post to a person in accordance with subsection (1)(c) or (ca), it shall be deemed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to be received by the person at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of the post.
The Court in Taylor held that, because the notice stated the period within which action was to be taken and stated the last day on which an appeal can be filed, service of an abatement notice is a matter of considerable importance and prosecuting authorities must ensure that, if they are called upon to do so, they can prove service to the required standard. The Council could not prove when the notice was posted and could not prove when the defendant received it.
The notice issued to Taylor stated the period within which action was to be taken and stated the last day on which an appeal could be filed. The author’s view is that the deadline date for filing an appeal does not have to be stated in an abatement notice and it is sufficient to state that an appeal has to be filed within 15 working days of service of the abatement notice. However, the date should be included in the notice for the period within which the action must be taken or must cease.
It is recommended that, wherever possible, abatement notices be personally served. This will avoid the problem which arose in Taylor and may also emphasise the seriousness of the situation to the recipient of the notice.
14/02/97, Judge Skelton, DC Wellington CRN 6085018671
Points to watch
Slipper Island Resort v Thames Coromandel District Council & Others
The Planning Tribunal in Slipper Island Resort heard an application for re-hearing (under s 294 of the RMA) of three appeals struck out by the Tribunal. One of the grounds put forward for the re-hearing was that no notice of hearing had been received or delivered to the appellants. The Tribunal held, at page 8:
... where a notice is attempted to be served under section 352 RM Act by postal delivery, a successful service may only arise if the notice is delivered at the addressee’s house or office or into his or her letterbox or rural delivery box ... However, if such a notice was returned to the sender, whether or not the addressee was at fault for the non-delivery, that notice cannot be deemed to have been received by that person under section 352 RM Act at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of the post.
A8/93
Points to watch
Hartford Group Ltd v Auckland City Council and Force Corporation Ltd
In Hartford Group Ltd the Environment Court considered Hartford Group’s application for an enforcement order requiring the Auckland City Council to cease processing Force Corporation’s resource consent application until notice had been served on Hartford in accordance with s 93(1)(e), giving it the opportunity to lodge a submission.
The Council had posted the notice of the application to Hartford and had also sent the notice to Hartford’s solicitor. The notice sent to Hartford was returned in the post to the Council. Evidence was given at the hearing that Hartford ’s solicitors did not receive the notice.
The Court held that the effect of s 352(5) is that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the notice is deemed to have been received by Hartford “at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of the post”. The burden of proof lies on Hartford, and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The Court found that the notice had not been received by Hartford.
A49/98
Prosecution
The laying of the information (charge) is the commencement of the criminal proceedings. The procedure for service of a summons is set out in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.
An information and a summons are almost identical: the summons is the copy of the information that is served on the defendant. The summons states the date and time of the hearing. Constables and officers of the Court are authorised to serve a summons, but for service by any other person authorisation from the Registrar is required, which means that authorisation is required by the Registrar for process servers to serve a summons (s 25 of the Summary Proceedings Act).
The method of service of a summons on a defendant is set out in s 24 of the Summary Proceedings Act.
24. Mode of service of documents on defendant—
(1) Every summons to a defendant and every other document which is required to be served on a defendant shall be served on him in one of the following ways:
(a) By being delivered to him personally or by being brought to his notice if he refuses to accept it; or
(b) By being left for him at his place of residence with a member of his family living with him and appearing to be of or over the age of 18 years; or
(c) By being sent to him by registered letter addressed to him at his last known or usual place of residence or at his place of business; or
(d)...
Provided that a District Court Judge or Justice or Community Magistrate or the Registrar may if he thinks fit direct that the summons or other document shall be served in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(1A) Despite subsection (1), if a summons or other document required to be served on a defendant is to be served on a defendant who is a Crown organisation, it may be served –
(a) by delivering it personally to an employee of the organisation at its head office or principal place of business; or
(b) by delivering it at the organisation's head office or principal place of business, including by facsimile; or
(c) in accordance with a method agreed between the informant and the organisation.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section the expression “member of his family” means the defendant’s father, mother, wife, husband, de facto partner of the same or different sex, child, brother, sister, half brother, or half sister.
(3) Where service is effected in accordance with paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, then, unless the contrary is shown, service shall be deemed to have been effected on the person to whom the letter is addressed at the time when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving service it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter was properly addressed and posted.
Prosecution for contravention of sections 15A, 15B or 15C
Where the master or owner of a ship is a defendant in any prosecution for an offence against s 338 for contravention of sections 15A, 15B or 15C, the procedure for service given in s 352A must be followed. Section 352A(2) provides that the District Court Judge or Justice or Registrar may direct that the summons be served in accordance with s 24 of the Summary Proceedings Act, where he/she is satisfied that it would not be impracticable to do so in the particular circumstances.
Old plan, or new plan, or both?
The question, “which (of several) planning instruments should prevail?” has been a somewhat vexing one under the RMA. The practical difficulty is that a local authority has both the power and the responsibility to modify its plan from time to time. That exercise involves rights of submission, and appeals. It takes time to complete such an exercise, in its totality. Some matters may have been “finally” disposed of before others. But, is the entire “new” plan to be on hold until all these intervening matters have been looked to?
In the case of a municipality such as Auckland City, a review could literally take years even if a local authority takes advantage of the power conferred in s 73(3) of the RMA to proceed on a “sectionalised” basis. For whatever reason, the RMA did not solve all the aspects of this general problem. And so it was that cases began to filter up to the Environment Court in which, in one way or another, that Court had to consider the issue: “old plan, or new plan, or both?” (Hammond J, TV3 Network Services Ltd v Waikato District Council (1997) NZRMA 539 (HC)).
The material set out in this section is complex. We suggest that each local authority issue criteria that staff can follow when evaluating consent applications and considering enforcement action during the period that two plans apply. Appendix 12A sets out the action to take in four hypothetical scenarios, structured as question and answer.
Definitions
In this section a number of Environment Court decisions are referred to. The terms used in these decisions are “transitional plan”, “operative plan” and “proposed plan”.
The proposed plan will only be “operative” when the plan is operative in terms of clause 20 of the Schedule 1, which means it has gone through the full process: public notification of the proposed plan, submissions and further submissions, Council decision, then references to the Environment Court and, if necessary, appeals to the High Court, and finally public notification of the plan. However, during this period, certain activities may be undertaken in certain circumstances as if the rule had become operative.
A number of local authorities have used clause 17(2) Schedule 1 of the RMA and applied to the Environment Court to have part of their respective plans made operative. This has resulted in "partially operative" plans.
Activities
Activities generally fall into the following categories:
- unclassified (not defined in the RMA) – no consent is required, and existing uses and land use and other activities are covered by the permissive presumptions sections 9, 12(2), 13(2), 14(2) and 15(2).
RMA sections 104 and 105
Section 104 of the Act sets out the principal matters to which a consent authority must have regard when considering an application for a resource consent. One of these (s 104(1)(b)) is:
Any relevant provisions of –
(i) a national policy statement:
(ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement
(iv) a plan or proposed plan:
Sections 104 A - D were inserted by section 44 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2003 and describe the decision-making powers of consent authorities for controlled, non-complying, discretionary and restricted discretionary activities.
Section 104A states that after considering an application for a resource consent for a controlled activity, a consent authority may:
(b) impose conditions on the consent under section 108 for matters over which it has reserved control in its plan or proposed plan.
Section 104D contains particular restrictions for non-complying activities and states:
(1) Despite any decision made for the purpose of section 93 in relation to minor effects, a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either–
(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(b) applies) will be minor; or
(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of –
(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or
(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or
(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.
Relative weight to be given to a proposed plan vs a transitional plan in consent evaluations and recommendations
In Lim v Hutt City Council ([1994] NZRMA 183)the Planning Tribunal held that the weight given to a proposed plan depends on what stage the relevant provision has reached, the weight generally being greater as a proposed plan moves through the notification and hearing processes.
The Planning Tribunal in Hanton v Auckland City Council ([1994] NZRMA 289) held the following.
(a) The Act does not distinguish between the weight to be accorded to an operative plan and to a proposed plan (though this is only an issue where the provisions of the operative plan are inconsistent with the provisions being proposed).
(b) The requirements of s 104 for having regard to various matters are related to the exercise of discretions conferred by s 104A-D. Rather than have a general rule about the cases where a proposed plan is to prevail over inconsistent provisions of an operative plan, or vice versa, each case should be decided individually according to its own circumstances. Relevant factors include:
(i) the extent to which the proposed measure has been exposed to independent decision-making
(ii) possible injustice
(iii) the extent to which a new measure may implement a coherent pattern of objectives and policies in a plan.
RMA s19
A new s 19 in the RMA was substituted by s 8 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2003. Section 19 of the RMA now allows for a rule to be treated as operative if no submissions or appeals have been lodged, or if all submissions or appeals have been withdrawn or finally determined. Section 19 provides as follows:
(1) A rule in a proposed plan is to be treated as if it is operative and any previous rule is inoperative if the time for making submissions or lodging appeals on the rule has expired and –
(a) no submissions in opposition have been made or appeals have been lodged; or
(b) all submissions in opposition and appeals have been determined; or
(c) all submissions in opposition have been withdrawn and all appeals withdrawn or dismissed.
(2) Every reference in this Act or in regulations to a plan or an operative plan is to be treated as including a rule in a proposed plan that is operative in accordance with subsection (1).
Case Example 11a was decided under the previous s 19, but the High Court's comments are still applicable.
Case example A
Westmark Investments Ltd v Auckland City Council
The High Court considered s 19 in Westmark Investments. The appellant sought a declaration from the Planning Tribunal on a point of law. The Planning Tribunal refused to make the declaration sought and Westmark appealed to the High Court. Westmark was the owner of a building at the corner of Ponsonby Road and Jervois Road in Auckland City.
The appellant proposed to convert the building into shops and apartments. The building exceeded the height limitation in the Auckland City Council Transitional Operative District Plan. The maximum height in the Transitional Operative District Plan was 10 metres. In the Auckland City Proposed Plan the maximum height was 12.5 metres. The appellant wanted to erect a building which exceeded 10 metres but was less than 12.5 metres.
Note: The appellant obtained a resource consent to the building exceeding the height limit in the transitional operative district plan and therefore the appeal was unnecessary, but the parties proceeded because the questions were of public importance.
Justice Barker held:
In broad terms, under the Act, where there is a transitional operative plan and a proposed plan a development must comply with the requirements of both plans unless there is some resource consent given.
The Planning Tribunal held that a broad, unspecific submission could imperil a specific provision in the plan dealing with height restrictions, even though the submission did not refer either to the specific height restriction or to height restrictions in general.
The High Court did not agree with the Planning Tribunal, and categorised three different types of situations in relation to submissions:
(a) a specific submission is made against a specific rule
(b) a specific submission seeks general but limited changes throughout the plan
(c) a submission seeks broad and general changes to a proposed plan.
If a submission is made which falls into category (c), this submission does not imperil a specific provision where the submitter does not state the change proposed. Therefore, in the Westmark case a submission had been made which was a general complaint about development controls.
The High Court held that this submission could not affect specific provisions such as height restrictions. The High Court held that a situation could occur where a submitter claims:
(a) that the whole plan is invalid, or
(b) the process should be started again because of a procedural defect.
If such a submission were made with reasonable specificity, the submission could freeze the new plan for the purpose of s 19. The High Court commented that if a serious challenge to a plan is made, the Council should seek a declaratory judgment from the High Court or apply to the Environment Court for a declaration.
[1995] NZRMA 570
RMA sections 10, 10A and 20A
Sections 10, 10A and 20A of the Resource Management Act 1991 provide for existing use rights.
Section 10 deals with existing use rights on land. Under this section, land may be used in a manner that contravenes a rule in a district plan or proposed district plan if:
- the effects of the use are the same or similar in character, intensity and scale.
Generally s 10 does not apply to activities that have been discontinued for a continuous period of more than 12 months after the rule became operative or the proposed plan was notified.
Section 10A deals with existing use rights for activities on the surface of water in lakes and rivers. Where an activity was lawfully established before the rule in a plan became operative or the rule in the proposed plan was notified, and the activity now requires a resource consent, the activity may continue if:
Section 20A provides that any existing activity that was formerly a permitted activity, or that otherwise could have been lawfully carried out without a resource consent as a result of a rule in a proposed plan, may continue until the plan becomes operative if the factors in subsections 20A(a) to (c) are present.
Activities that were permitted, or were lawfully carried on without a resource consent, but which become controlled, discretionary or non-complying activities as a result of a rule in a regional plan, may be continued for a limited period in the circumstances defined in s 20A(2).
Application for a resource consent must be made within six months of the rule becoming operative. The appropriate test to apply when determining whether a use was lawfully established is on the balance of probabilities. The onus is on the person seeking to establish that a use qualifies as an existing use to satisfy the Court that the intensity and scale of the activity have not increased (See Waitakere City Council v Gordon A11/98).
RMA s17
If there is an adverse effect on the environment but the activity qualifies as an existing use, the Council can apply for an interim enforcement order and/or an enforcement order and issue an abatement notice enforcing the duty in s 17.
Prosecution
A local authority can prosecute under a proposed plan and under a transitional plan.
Case example B
Auckland City Council v Turner
The Auckland City Council laid 38 charges against each of the defendants, Mr and Mrs Turner, relating to alleged illegal earthworks, construction of a concrete pad and retaining wall, and removal of a puriri tree and damage to other trees in the course of the works. The charges alleged contraventions of the Auckland City Council’s Operative (Transitional) District Plan and its proposed District Plan.
The defendants applied for orders staying or dismissing the charges on the ground that they could not be prosecuted for breach of both plans.
The Court held that the Council could proceed to a hearing on prosecutions alleging contravention of rules of an operative and a proposed district plan in respect of the same act, and that this would not amount to an abuse of process and it would not be oppressive or vexatious.
The scheme of the Resource Management Act involves a territorial authority having both an operative district plan, and a proposed district plan intended to replace the former when submissions and appeals have been decided and any consequential amendments made. Unlike the earlier legislation which it repeals, the Resource Management Act gives effect to the rules contained in a proposed district plan. Those affected have to comply with them as well as with rules of an operative district plan. It is to be expected that rules in operative plans and proposed plans may apply to the same circumstances.
... Parliament has deliberately departed from the previous law, and provided that while an operative plan and a proposed plan exist in the same district, both have effect at law. A person who wishes to carry out an activity regulated by both has to comply with or obtain resource consent in respect of both. Failure to comply with or obtain resource consent in respect of both could amount to separate offences, even though they relate to the same act
8/11/95, Judge Sheppard, DC Auckland CRN 5004043089 – 3126 & 3191 – 32280
The Turners applied to the High Court for judicial review of Judge Sheppard’s decision. The High Court dismissed the application ( Fisher J, HC M1410/95). The High Court made it clear that when it came to sentencing the position would be different. No defendant should be punished twice for the same conduct. At page 5 of the High Court decision: “there is usually no point in entering more than one conviction for any given act and to do so exaggerates the appearance of culpability for those considering the record of convictions on some future occasion.
Environment Court practice notes
The Environment Court has issued notes as a guide to practice in the Environment Court generally. The notes have been reproduced in Appendix 11B.
