202403476 A2 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1384

In his sentencing remarks the judge said that, although the appellant had not pleaded guilty at an early stage, he was satisfied that he had received incompetent legal advice from counsel formerly instructed who had raised points which were said to be wholly unarguable. Had the appellant been properly advised at the outset that he had no defence in law, he would have pleaded guilty at that stage and so should have full credit for his plea.

The judge referred to the requirement in s.210(3) that in passing sentence he should have regard to any financial benefit which had occurred or appeared likely to accrue to the appellant in consequence of the offence. There was no evidence of any such benefit in this case.

The judge then said that the intended benefit of felling “at least 132 mature trees was “an amenity benefit to provide a more attractive site for what was hoped to have been the building of a truly sensational house on what was a large site of about 10 acres on the edge of Epping Forest”, in contrast to the 2016 planning permission for a 4 bedroom home. The area where the trees were felled was 1.29 ha. The land would potentially be of very considerable value if developed for a large private home, as intended. The felling of the trees “made the site potentially more valuable”, but the appellant’s motivation in buying and clearing the land was not to make a profit but to have a site for his family home. Ms. Chalkley confirmed that the appellant makes no criticism of those findings by the judge.

The judge said that the notes of previous sentencing decisions in the Crown Court to which he had been referred had not involved such a large area of land or as many trees. The felling of the trees involved the loss of their amenity value, wildlife habitat and their function as a carbon store. But the appellant’s draft undertaking to carry out a tree planting plan would provide some environmental compensation in the future.

Turning to the appellant, the judge said that he had become a very wealthy man, worth many millions, through hard work and entrepreneurial skill. He had no previous convictions and was of positive good character, as witnessed by the very large sums he had donated to charity and his philanthropic works.

When he came to weigh all the considerations in the balance, the judge described the felling of the protected trees as a serious matter which had obviously impacted adversely on the environment. He did not think it appropriate to take a figure for the value of one tree and then multiply that by the number of trees felled. Instead, he arrived at an overall figure that he considered to be “fair and just to mark the gravity of a significant breach of the law”, along with the agreed basis of plea and mitigation. The judge concluded that after a trial the fine would have been £300,000, but he reduced that by one third for the guilty plea to £200,000.