A farmer by the name of Daniel Finn, a man in his 70s hailing from Tevenie, Dromina, Charleville, in Co Cork, has been ordered to mull over contributing a significant sum to a forest charity to potentially circumvent prosecution. Finn, who eliminated and uprooted 250 trees that would necessitate “a hundred years to regrow”, made his appearance in front of Mallow District Court. Judge Colm Roberts labeled the episode as a case of “ecological terrorism”.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage brought charges against Finn. According to the department’s representative, Barrister Paula McCarthy, BL, the deeds were discovered on April 28th of last year. Finn confessed to the crimes, perpetrated between March 1st and August 31st, 2023, contrary to the Wildlife Act of 1976.
Stream Hill in Doneraile, Co Cork was the site of the offences. They consisted of eliminating and uprooting 250 mature and partially mature trees and eradicating 3.7 hectares of vegetation, shrubs, and trees. Furthermore, the actions resulted in the obliteration of a water-based habitat in a natural watercourse that is home to salmonids and damaged a river habitat extending up to 350 meters.
Part of the affected zone falls within the Ballihoura Mountains and is under conservation. Claire Deasy, a conservation ranger, informed the judge that it could be a hundred years before the trees destroyed by Finn are replaced. When questioned by Deasy about his actions, Finn reasoned he was “enhancing land for agriculture”. Deasy underscored the necessity of conserving native forestland, as only 2% of it is still standing in Ireland.
Defending solicitor Marie Ford highlighted that her client had pleaded guilty and was fully aware of “the gravity and severity of the situation”.
The original text indicates that Mr. Finn, a man without a criminal history, has shown his willingness to donate to a wildlife organisation as an expression of regret for his actions. Judge Roberts mentioned that a €10,000 fine is the maximum punishment for the case, suggesting that any charitable contribution needs to exceed this sum if it were to be considered as an alternative resolution.
The judge went on to say that the damage caused by Mr. Finn’s actions was so severe it couldn’t be quantified. He questioned whether Finn wished to be remembered as an environmental villain or an individual who’d erred but wished to make amends. The judge dismissed his actions as deliberate, reckless, and widespread.
Judge Roberts acknowledged that Mr. Finn should be aware of the environmental implications of his actions, given his profession as a farmer. This, for the judge, makes his actions even more shocking. He further stated that he expects to receive a substantial proposal concerning charity contributions from Mr. Finn as a sign of his sincere regret. Failing a serious and substantial donation could result in a conviction, he warned. The case will reconvene on the 20th of October for a final decision.