I have no idea where I got this vid.. I think someone must of sent it to me as the quality is low.
Would like to get more info.. maybe someone knows the lady in the video.. i'll send to some batty members and see if they know of her.
update 09/06/2012
CREDIT: Dr. Carol Booth
email from Carol Booth. says the video is hers. It is dated December 2000. I have permission to keep it up on YouTube and Blog. Is glad you have it up. She had not thought to put it up herself and was glad that somebody did, so she is happy that the video is up there.
In 1999, the first federal environment laws were introduced under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). Booth v Bosworth, better known as the ‘flying fox case’, was the very first case to apply the new laws. Dr Carol Booth brought forward the case against a landowner who had been killing spectacled flying foxes on a property in North Queensland.
It was common for farmers in Queensland to erect what was nicknamed “fry foxes”, which were huge pole structures that – ideally for the farmers – would electrocute the flying foxes before they could get to any lychee or mango crops. Because the spectacled flying fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) was endemic to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and thus included within the scope of the new EPBC Act, the farmer was given an injunction. The farmer than applied to the environment minister for approval to kill the flying foxes, but the application was denied.
Flying Fox Case - http://envlaw.com.au/flying-fox-case/
" This was the first test case of Australia’s national environmental laws and a landmark in public interest environmental litigation in Australia.
The case occurred only months after Australia’s national environmental laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act), commenced operation and showed that the Act provided an important safety-net protecting biodiversity in Australia beyond the protection provided by State laws.
The case involved action to stop the killing of thousands of Spectacled Flying Foxes (Pteropus conspicillatus) on a lychee farm in North Queensland using a large electric grid.
It was brought by a conservationist, Dr Carol Booth, after she visited the farm in late 2000 and found extensive evidence of the killing.
The following footage was taken by her on the farm and used as evidence in the court proceedings. It shows dead Spectacled Flying Foxes on the ground at base of the electric grids and hanging in the electric grids running down lines of lychee trees. In one section Dr Booth is shown with a live juvenile bat found clinging to its dead mother. "
MEDIA REPORTS ABOUT THIS CASE
Top 5 landmark environmental legal cases in Australia, Australian Geographic, 16 July 2018.
KEY DOCUMENTS
APPLICATION AND PLEADINGSApplicationStatement of ClaimAmended DefenceReply
INTERIM INJUNCTIONApplicant’s outline of submissions for an interim injunctionJudgment refusing an interim injunction by Spender J: Booth v Bosworth [2000] FCA 1878
TRIALApplicant’s outline of submissions and submissions in reply for final injunction and order to dismantle gridJudgment granting a final injunction by Branson J: Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1453; (2001) 114 FCR 39; (2001) 117 LGERA 168Judgment granting costs by Branson J: Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1718
REFERRAL OF GRIDS TO MINISTER
Key documents for the referral to the Minister following the trial were:Minister’s decision that the proposed action was a controlled action requiring approval under the EPBC Act;Public submission by Dr Carol Booth on why approval should be refused (Nb. This is an example of a well written public submission – it is clear, logical, relevant to the issues the decision-maker must consider, and based on evidence rather than an emotional plea);Minister’s decision to refuse the proposed action.
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION
In 2004 one of the farmers applied to the Federal Court to have the injunction removed. That application was refused:Bosworth v Booth [2004] FCA 1623.
An appeal against that decision was also refused.
FURTHER READING
Two articles explaining the background to this case and its significance are:Chris McGrath, “The Flying Fox Case” (2001) 18 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 540-560.Chris McGrath, “Flying foxes, dams and whales: Using federal environmental laws in the public interest” (2008) 25 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 324-359 at 341-342.
" This was the first test case of Australia’s national environmental laws and a landmark in public interest environmental litigation in Australia.
The case occurred only months after Australia’s national environmental laws, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act), commenced operation and showed that the Act provided an important safety-net protecting biodiversity in Australia beyond the protection provided by State laws.
The case involved action to stop the killing of thousands of Spectacled Flying Foxes (Pteropus conspicillatus) on a lychee farm in North Queensland using a large electric grid.
It was brought by a conservationist, Dr Carol Booth, after she visited the farm in late 2000 and found extensive evidence of the killing.
The following footage was taken by her on the farm and used as evidence in the court proceedings. It shows dead Spectacled Flying Foxes on the ground at base of the electric grids and hanging in the electric grids running down lines of lychee trees. In one section Dr Booth is shown with a live juvenile bat found clinging to its dead mother. "
MEDIA REPORTS ABOUT THIS CASE
Top 5 landmark environmental legal cases in Australia, Australian Geographic, 16 July 2018.
KEY DOCUMENTS
APPLICATION AND PLEADINGSApplicationStatement of ClaimAmended DefenceReply
INTERIM INJUNCTIONApplicant’s outline of submissions for an interim injunctionJudgment refusing an interim injunction by Spender J: Booth v Bosworth [2000] FCA 1878
TRIALApplicant’s outline of submissions and submissions in reply for final injunction and order to dismantle gridJudgment granting a final injunction by Branson J: Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1453; (2001) 114 FCR 39; (2001) 117 LGERA 168Judgment granting costs by Branson J: Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1718
REFERRAL OF GRIDS TO MINISTER
Key documents for the referral to the Minister following the trial were:Minister’s decision that the proposed action was a controlled action requiring approval under the EPBC Act;Public submission by Dr Carol Booth on why approval should be refused (Nb. This is an example of a well written public submission – it is clear, logical, relevant to the issues the decision-maker must consider, and based on evidence rather than an emotional plea);Minister’s decision to refuse the proposed action.
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION
In 2004 one of the farmers applied to the Federal Court to have the injunction removed. That application was refused:Bosworth v Booth [2004] FCA 1623.
An appeal against that decision was also refused.
FURTHER READING
Two articles explaining the background to this case and its significance are:Chris McGrath, “The Flying Fox Case” (2001) 18 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 540-560.Chris McGrath, “Flying foxes, dams and whales: Using federal environmental laws in the public interest” (2008) 25 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 324-359 at 341-342.
