The case establishes a detailed framework for sentencing environmental offences involving threatened species, identifying specific objective factors (maximum penalty, objective seriousness within statutory scheme, environmental harm, state of mind, foreseeability of harm, practical measures to avoid harm, and reasons for commission) and subjective factors (prior criminality, guilty plea, contrition and remorse, cooperation). The court held that sentencing for environmental offences must change the 'economic calculus' so that the cost of compliance is less than the cost of offending, and that the impecunious state of a corporate defendant in liquidation should not significantly mitigate the fine. A fine of $40,000 (approximately 73% of the $55,000 maximum) was imposed for deliberate, commercially-motivated clearing that damaged 20% of the world population of a vulnerable species.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 266 later cases that cite this judgment.
21 of the 266 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.