district court logo

Department of Conservation v Precision Helicopters [2020] NZDC 19272

Published 08 October 2021

Sentencing — discharge without conviction — unauthorised aircraft landing — Remote Experience Zone — commercial concession — Conservation Act 1987, ss 17ZF, 43, 43C & 43D — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106 & 107 — DC v R [2013] NZCA 255 — Maraj v Police [2016] NZCA 279 — R v Taulapapa [2018] NZCA 414 — Zhang v Ministry of Economic Development HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-000453, 17 March 2011 — Department of Conservation v Wairaki Station Ltd [2018] NZDC 3355 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135 — Edwards v R [2015] NZCA 583 — R v Smythe [2017] NZCA 530 — Department of Conservation v Tilyard DC Taupo CRI-2012-069-001419, 5 December 2012 — Department of Conservation v Goodger DC Taupo CRI-2011-069-001893, 18 September 2012 — Department of Conservation v Williams [2020] NZDC 10430. The defendant appeared for sentence on a charge of breaching the Conservation Act by landing an aircraft at an unauthorised site. A privately-owned helicopter belonging to a pilot who was contracted to the defendant had landed in a remote experience zone within the Kaimanawa Forest Park. Helicopter landings were banned within the remote experience zone, except in the case of emergency. The defendant sought a discharge without conviction on the grounds that it was the helicopter pilot who was responsible for the offending. The pilot had already been convicted and sentenced for his role, and the defendant argued that he had chosen to undertake the flights despite having been told by the defendant that the flights had not received the required approval from the Department of Conservation. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the defendant had not taken enough responsibility for making sure that the pilot knew that the flights were not authorised, and that he would not undertake them. The defendant had overall responsibility for the flights in question. Further, it had received a written warning for an unlawful landing in the past. The Court found that the consequences of conviction put forth by the defendant were speculative, and given the defendant's culpability (low-moderate to moderate), the consequences of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The Court declined to discharge the defendant without conviction, and after assessing comparable cases, set a start point for fine of $20,000. In mitigation, the defendant was of good character overall, cooperated with the investigation, had taken remedial action, had shown remorse and had pleaded guilty. The final fine was $12,000; the Court ordered that $1000 of this sum be paid to a member of the public who had reported the offending. Judgment Date: 18 September 2020