Court Orders Company To Pay $40,000 For Removing Buttonwood Mangrove In East End. Funds To Be Paid Into Environmental Protection Fund
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Today, June 25, 2025, the Chief Magistrate ordered Bon Crepe Ltd. to pay $40,000, consisting of a $30,000 fine for removing Buttonwood mangrove from the company’s East End property and $10,000 in compensation to the Crown for the cost of replenishing the Buttonwood mangrove. All monies will be paid into the Environmental Protection Fund.
Background
Regarding the background, it was explained that the company purchased the property in 2014 and owns 300 acres in East End. It is zoned residential agricultural.
In 2018, the company started to put in trails on the property.
In 2019, the Department of Environment became aware that a 30-foot-wide road was being constructed on the property, which traversed an important primary habitat. It was noted that no planning permission was sought as required.
Notwithstanding DoE’s view, the company said that it did not believe that planning permission was required. (It is important to note here that the Buttonwood mangrove did not become a protected species until April 2020, and the company started work on the property before this date.)
The story continues with the commencement of the road again in November 2022 until February 2023, when the company’s director was served with the cease and desist notice.
Concerning the cease and desist notice, a statement from Fred Burton reportedly said that the road entered a large area of the Buttonwood wetland. Reportedly, the clearance of vegetation to build a road involved the destruction of Buttonwood. (It is estimated that the area destroyed as a result of the road construction is 0.95 acres, made up of Buttonwood, Bitterplum and other species.)
The statement from Burton added that if planning permission had been sought, the DoE and the National Conservation Council would have been involved, consulted, and able to mitigate any environmental impact.
Sentencing
After considering Burton’s statement and submissions from counsel for the company and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Magistrate noted that the maximum penalty under the National Conservation Act for this offence is $500,000.
Addressing relevant sentencing guidelines, the Chief Magistrate acknowledged that none existed in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, the Chief Magistrate referred to the UK sentencing guidelines.
The Chief Magistrate made the following observations:
**The activity lasted approximately 3 months
** Culpability was either negligent-to-low as the action was not deliberate by the company
**Harm was to approximately 0.95 acres out of the total 300 acres owned by the company. As such, harm was minimal and was mitigated with the cease and desist order
**It was an aggravating feature that, unknown to the company, its property was designated an environmentally sensitive site following commencement of works
**Mitigating factors existed, including that the company had no previous offenses, immediate steps were taken to stop the construction of the road, there was no evidence of commercial motivation, this was a one-off incident, there was no financial gain and there was acceptance of responsibility.
After analysing the foregoing, the Chief Magistrate said that the company must pay a fine of $30,000 under section 38 of the National Conservation Act.
In addition, the company must engage and consult with the DoE and the National Conservation Council to replenish the area with Buttonwood mangroves. Lastly, a two-year monitoring period will be implemented concerning the Buttonwood mangroves.
Furthermore, the company must pay compensation of $10,000 to the Crown in relation to the cost of any remedial action that may be taken.
All the foregoing fines and fees will be paid into the Environmental Protection Fund.
The Chief Magistrate concluded:
I extend my gratitude to the Department of Environment and the NCC for its diligence in protecting and preserving our natural resources and protected species.
Perhaps some public education campaigns would greatly help others to understand all the nuances of the law.
Note to readers
Taking a specimen of a protected species is an offence under section 33 of the National Conservation Act. This states:
Offences relating to protected species
33. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, not being authorised or permitted under this Law —
(a) takes or permits any other person to take a specimen of a protected species;
(b) permits any domesticated animal to take a specimen of a protected species;
(c) has a specimen of a protected species in his possession or control; or
(d) exposes or offers for sale, exchange or donation, or purchases a specimen
of a protected species, commits an offence.
(2) This section does not apply to a Part 2 species unless —
(a) a conservation plan has been adopted for that species; or
(b) regulations made under this Law or continued in force by virtue
of section 52(2) apply to it
In this case, a conservation plan was adopted for the Buttonwood mangrove on April 27, 2020.
A copy of the gazette notice is below:
Regarding payment of fines, this is covered under section 38 of the National Conservation Act. This states:
38. (1) Where no punishment is specifically prescribed under this Law a person who commits an offence under this Law is liable on conviction to a fine of five hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of four years or to both.
(2) Where a person has been convicted of any offence under this Law, the court may, having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, make an order in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed under this Law having any or all of the following effects-
(a) prohibiting the offender from doing any act or engaging in any activity that may result in the continuation or repetition of the offence;
(b) disqualifying the offender from holding any licence or permit under this Law either permanently or for such period of time as the court considers appropriate;
(c) directing the offender to take such action as the court considers appropriate to remedy or avoid any harm to the environment or to any natural resources that results or may result from the act or omission that constituted the offence;
(d) directing the offender to compensate the Crown, in whole or in part, for the cost of any remedial or preventative action taken by or on behalf of the Council or the Director as a result of the act or omission that constituted the offence;
(e) directing the offender to perform community service in a protected area or in furtherance of the conservation of a protected species;
(f) directing the offender to post such bond or pay such amount of money into court as will ensure compliance with any order made pursuant to this section; and
(g) forfeiting to the Crown any specimen that was the subject of the offence and any vehicle or vessel or any noxious substance, firearm, speargun, trap, net or other article or equipment in respect of or by means of which the offence was committed.
(3) In making an order under subsection (2) forfeiting a vessel or a vehicle, the court may in the order specify a sum, not exceeding its market value, on the payment of which to the Crown the owner of the vessel or vehicle may recover ownership of it.
(4) Where the court makes an order under subsection (2) directing the offender to pay compensation to the Crown, the costs constitute a debt to the Crown and may be recovered as such in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Readers may be interested in another environmental case where 13,800 square feet of coral reef damage occurred in a protected zone in West Bay. No admissions of guilt were ever made in respect of the vessel reportedly owned by a foreign party, and no parties were taken to court. Instead, the government entered into a private settlement agreement, which remains a secret. The details are below:
