This analysis examines how amicus curiae involvement may hinder restorative justice outcomes in environmental sentencing.
In Environment Protection Authority v Forestry Corporation of NSW [2024] NSWLEC 84, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court granted a community organization leave to participate as amicus curiae in a sentencing hearing for an environmental offence, citing restorative justice as part of the wider context for doing so. I argue that while amicus curiae participation may be valuable in sentencing hearings, it is structurally incompatible with restorative justice due to the absence of voluntariness. It also fails to realize core restorative benefits, including dialogue, innovative solutions, and a victim-centred frame. The analysis concludes that these benefits may be more effectively realized through established restorative justice mechanisms, supported by education, cost assistance, holistic conceptions of environmental harm, and stronger political and legislative frameworks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
E Wen Wong (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: