Advert

Trees vandalism court sentence deemed too lenient by park warden

An angry Ray Vella surveying the damage done by Darren Cross, Noel Grech and Charlot Chetcuti to 104 trees at the Foresta 2000 site in Mellieħa on April 26. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

An angry Ray Vella surveying the damage done by Darren Cross, Noel Grech and Charlot Chetcuti to 104 trees at the Foresta 2000 site in Mellieħa on April 26. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

The punishment meted out to the three hunters who admitted to vandalising 104 trees at the Foresta 2000 woodland in Mellieħa is not enough, park warden Ray Vella insists.

The three hunters – Darren Cross, 24, from Birkirkara, Noel Grech, 24, and Charlot Chetcuti, 20, both from Mosta – on Tuesday pleaded guilty to sawing off the trees and saplings.

They were fined €1,000 each and ordered to do 300 hours of community service. They also had to fork out €1,320 each in damages to pay for the trees they destroyed.

“I think the sentence was lenient, especially when you consider that the legal notice on tree vandalism says destroying protected trees such as these carries with it a minimum fine of €466 per tree,” the warden said, when contacted for his reaction to the ruling.

Mr Vella, who went to the park he supervises on April 26 to find 104 saplings deliberately sawn off, has nothing but praise for the police who “did a very good job to catch these people – with no leads”.

Petra Bianchi, president of Din l-Art Ħelwa, the organisation that manages the site along with BirdLife Malta, said “this was a destructive act that harmed the natural environment and undermined many hours of work for it, so I hope the hours of community service will include actions that directly benefit the environment”.

Nature Trust executive president Vince Attard said it was a good thing the offenders were caught.

“It’s good that, finally, someone was caught. I’m disappointed that the courts are too lenient. Were it a minor environmental crime it would have been one thing but something on this scale deserved a harsher punishment,” Mr Attard said.

In his opinion, it is about time the courts took the environment more into consideration when meting out punishments in such crimes.

“One hopes the courts will be harsher in similar cases. It wasn’t one organisation that suffered through this crime but all of the Maltese population.”

Gaia foundation director Rudolf Ragonesi said the sentence could go a long way to set an example against such crimes. It was a step in the right direction.

“If the judgment is publicised it could go much further but if these people manage to disappear into obscurity it would be better for them,” Dr Ragonesi said.

He said that if people were to see the three hunters do community service it would send out a strong message that there was a price to pay for one’s actions, “even though you can’t put a price on nature”.

The hunters’ federation, FKNK, “strongly and unequivocally” condemned “such cowardly act against the environment”.

“Over decades, hunters and trappers have planted and cared for tens of thousands of trees all over Malta and Gozo, definitely much more than any other sector of the society, and this is precisely why such vandalism cannot be tolerated by the FKNK,” the federation said in a statement.

It said it was immediately suspending this year’s membership and the relative insurance policy of Mr Cross and Mr Chetcuti of Mosta and would not renew Mr Grech’s membership and insurance policy.

Kaċċaturi San Umbertu also condemned the vandalism, add­ing that “hunting issues should be resolved by the involvement of all parties concerned through democratic means around a negotiating table”.

“Unfortunately, certain malicious actions by fanatics from both sides of the fence prevent such dialogue being possible and only lead to more animosity.”

Many of the trees damaged in April had been planted in October 2007 to replace 3,000 that had been destroyed in a previous systematic act of vandalism. The shrubs had been bought thanks to €58,000 donated by the public and were also planted by the public.

Advert

12 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Johnny Xerri

Aug 26th 2010, 17:26

Whilst I agree that the sentence by the court is in a way lenient, I cannot agree with your line of thought.

Not even rapists and child abusers get life sentences and are free to roam around after a short period. And FKNK never mentioned any time frame. Suspending the membership for this year and in the other persons case not renewing his membership for next year does not mean that the year after FKNK will accept them back. They could well have to wait for more to time to pass.

Secondly, community work is an implicit fine that aims to correct and reform a person. If the 300 hrs were used in productive labour it would amount to at least €1120 (minimum wage rate) and to most likely €1600 (average wage rate). So in reality it is implicitly a €2900 fine.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 26th 2010, 12:39

Excuse me, but how does the Government come into a Court decision? Can you please explain? If you do not, I will take it that your're daft, to make such sweeping statements which verge on the nonsensical.

patrick zammit

Aug 26th 2010, 18:44

Since the law clearly states that the minimum is E466, it is up to the Govt (police, attorney general etc) to appeal a sentence which does not reflect the severity of the crime committed.
On today's Independent, there is an article stating that even someone who destroys a tree unintentionally like in a traffic accident, is awarded a penalty of circa E10,000.
So yes, the Govt has to appeal if it wants to be believed when it gives the impression that the environment should be safeguarded.
I would have preferred not to enter a slinging game, but since you seem to want just that, I will ask you, who is the daft one?

Advert
Advert