202403476 A2 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1384

The authorities and sentencing examples referred to involved deliberate defiance of a TPO;

The appellant had not deliberately defied the order. The basis of his plea was strict liability. He had relied upon the experience and expertise of the contractors he instructed to comply with planning law requirements. The appellant should be treated as having low or no culpability;

There was no financial benefit for the appellant. He was not acting as a commercial developer, but seeking to create a family home;

The judge failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant’s positive good character;

Given the above factors, in particular low culpability, the judge should have treated the harm caused by the felling of the trees as “largely irrelevant”;

There was no real difference between the level of harm caused by the arborists and the appellant. But the culpability of the arborists had been higher, namely a deliberate breach of the TPO or at least negligence;

A fine for the appellant ten times higher than the fines imposed on the arborists was disproportionate and manifestly excessive.