Law has a way of confusing the obvious.  Two years ago, Michael Rockall began clearing his three-acre property with the intent of returning the land to its native condition of oak and beech trees.

However, Forestry Commission officials in Woolverstone, England charged Rockall with cutting down his trees without a permit. They claimed the trees were no longer a garden, but a forest, even though they were originally planted as a garden. Rockall was convicted of the illegal cutting.

Two judges overturned the conviction stating the definition of a garden has changed in modern times.

The judges stated, “The Oxford English Dictionary states that a garden is an enclosed piece of ground devoted to the cultivation of flowers, fruit or vegetables.”

The two judges went on to rule, “The reality is that no description will categorically establish whether a piece of land is a garden or not…It is important to look at the relationship between the owner and the land, and the history and character of the land and space.”

What once seemed so simple and clear is nothing more than legal muddle. It is now to be decided on a case-by-case review. Now not even a garden is a garden or a forest a forest, but something not “categorically established.”