Jail quashed, fine halved in ‘wetlands’ appeal
A jail term for “wetland” damage on a small Kapiti farm has been quashed, with the definition of wetlands being corrected, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Adrian Neil Page was released after serving half the three-month term but a second appeal eventually overturned all but six of the 35 guilty findings made against him.
The Court of Appeal decided the conviction appeal in March, saying the definition of wetlands had been wrong in the District Court and at the first appeal in the High Court.
All charges against Page and his partner related to an 11ha parcel of land in the Nikau Valley in the Kāpiti District.
In a separate decision reconsidering the sentences imposed on Page and his partner, the Court of Appeal yesterday said it quashed the jail term.
Since he had already served it the court did not impose what it thought would have otherwise been the proper sentence on the charges that remained, three months’ home detention.
Page’s partner, Julie Maree Crosbie, had originally been fined $118,742. Her lawyer said, on the six guilty decisions that remained against her after the appeal, she should have been discharged without conviction.
The couple’s lawyer said Crosbie had left Page, a qualified excavator operator, to do earthworks which he did in breach of the Resource Management Act but caused no real environmental harm.
But the Court of Appeal said Crosbie was the owner of the land and she had to accept responsibility for her offending. It cut the fine to $57,000.
The court discharged orders for the “wetlands” to be restored, and accepted the re-wording of an order prohibiting the couple from starting or continuing anything at the property that was not allowed under regional or national rules for freshwater.
The Court of Appeal refused to award them costs.
The couple had asked for the council to cover all their legal costs, with their lawyer saying the prosecution had been fundamentally flawed and the charges should never have been laid.
Greater Wellington Regional Council, which took the case against Page and Crosbie, opposed the application for costs. Its lawyer said no bad faith or inappropriate conduct was involved.
Even though most of the convictions were ultimately overturned, the District Court had found the couple guilty and the High Court had agreed, the council said.
The Court of Appeal said the fact that an appeal was substantially successful was not grounds for awarding costs.
After the decision the council issued a statement saying the court had given clear guidance about how wetlands should be identified.
The council was committed to applying best practice and had changed its processes to make sure it complied with the court’s directions, the statement said.