Two men were convicted at Kilkenny District Court after the court found that trees were felled outside the two hectares permitted by a forestry licence at Coolraheen South, Co Kilkenny.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered judgment on 12 December 2017. The accused were Myles Kehoe, the owner of the relevant land, and James Hurley, who was in charge of the felling operation. Each faced one charge under section 37 of the Forestry Act 1946 concerning tree felling without the required notice, and one under section 51 concerning acts likely to cause trees to die or suffer irremediable damage.
The prosecution evidence was that 10.59 hectares were felled, while the licence specified two hectares. Forestry inspector Mr Murren said most of the trees he examined were upright and that he found only one uprooted stump across 12 plots. The defence disputed the interpretation of the licence and relied on the accompanying harvesting plan, arguing that the licence and plan together covered the wider property and that felling beyond the initial area was a reasonable response to continuing windblow and unstable trees.
The court ruled that the licence alone defined the area authorised for felling. It rejected the argument that the application and harvesting plan could be read with the licence to expand that area. It also found that a licence condition concerning windblown trees applied only within the two hectares marked by red circles on the accompanying map. The court concluded that felling outside that area was unauthorised.
On the section 37 charges, the court found beyond reasonable doubt that the required notice had not been given. It considered whether statutory exceptions applied, including whether the felling was authorised by a licence, and found the licence did not cover the trees at issue. The court also found that the exception concerning trees within 100 feet of a building did not apply, based on uncontested evidence that no such building was within that distance of the lands where felling occurred.
The court treated both offences as strict liability offences, for which an accused could avoid liability by showing reasonable care. It found that neither man had acted reasonably by continuing outside the clear limits of the licence. It also rejected Hurley’s argument that his company’s involvement prevented his personal criminal liability, noting his evidence that he was in charge of the project.
The judgment concluded that the required elements of the offences had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and recorded convictions against both men on both charges. The source does not state what sentence, if any, followed.