Turkington v Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to decide two appeals. The first appeal was from a decision of the District Court to dismiss charges against John Turkington Ltd (JTL) relating to alleged environmental impacts from forestry operations in Findlay Forest. The second appeal was from the District Court's refusal to award costs to JTL and Gordon Turkington, and its decision to award $15,000 in costs to Kim Speedy.

The Court rejected the Crown's argument that operating forestry machinery in a streambed was absolutely prohibited without a resource consent. The Court held that while such activity was not expressly allowed by the Regulations, it was permitted if the specified requirements were complied with. The Court found that the District Court had rightly dismissed the charges against JTL because the Crown had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the disturbance to the streambed had not been minimised.

The Court also rejected the appeals from the costs decisions. The Court held that the District Court had properly exercised its discretion under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act and had considered all relevant circumstances. The Court found no error in the District Court's conclusion that there was a proper basis to bring the prosecutions against JTL and Gordon Turkington, and that an award of costs to them was not justified. The Court found that the District Court's decision to award $15,000 in costs to Mr Speedy was appropriate given the Crown's failure to discontinue the prosecution after the first successful s 147 application.