Under the Tree Protection Act, introduced in 2005, “damage” to a protected tree includes poisoning, ringbarking, removing, lopping, pollarding, major pruning and “anything else” that causes the tree to die, reduces its expected life, or adversely affects its health or appearance.

Last year one person was prosecuted and fined $250 for illegally removing a regulated tree and three caution letters were issued for breaches of the act, figures from Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) reveal.

Urban treescapes manager Michael Brice said it was “very difficult” to prosecute offenders who breached the act as witnesses rarely came forward.

“People generally don’t want to get their neighbours offside so we can’t prosecute or pursue,” he said.

“They are breaking the law and it should not be treated any different to other breaches or breaks of the law.”

Mr Brice said people often damaged street trees by drilling holes into the trunk and applying herbicide – often undetected until it was too late.

Banks resident Julie Lloyd knows all too well the difficulty of gaining a satisfactory result from deliberate tree damage after she used a CCTV camera to catch someone who deliberately poisoned two of her trees.

A woman living in a property overlooking Ms Lloyd’s faced court for property damage and trespass after she poisoned the trees on several occasions with an unknown substance.

She pleaded guilty to the two charges, but no conviction was recorded and another property damage charge was dropped because of insufficient evidence.

With no compensation awarded, Ms Lloyd was left with two dying trees and little recourse for further action.

“Given that it was on my private property their [TAMS] assistance has been good, but I’d like to think the laws could protect people from this occurring," she said.

“It would have been nice to have seen her have a fine."

She bought the CCTV camera after noticing white liquid and granules on the trees and dead foliage beneath them.

The woman denied it was her in the footage when approached by police.

They advised Ms Lloyd to apply for a protection order to ensure the woman would not trespass on the property again, but Ms Lloyd said she still feels exposed and vulnerable.

The trees are still standing but Ms Lloyd worries they will lose their leaves in winter and never regenerate.

“Now they look like they’ve been in a bushfire, they look burnt,” she said.

Trees on private land are only covered by the tree protection act if they are at least 12 metres tall with a trunk diameter of 50 centimetres at one-metre off the ground.

Ms Lloyd's 15-year-old trees at 5.5 metres tall were ineligible for protected tree status.

“If it’s private property it’s not something we’d be interested in ... the trespass issue is the issue,” Mr Brice said.

Suspected deliberate tree damage on private or public land can be reported to Canberra Connect for investigation.

Before undertaking work on regulated trees, a four-page form must be lodged with TAMS.

Last year, TAMS received 2115 applications to remove, prune or lop trees, most were for tree removal and about half were granted, Mr Brice said.

“It’s a fairly straightforward process but we don’t always agree to letting trees go and that’s what the idea of the tree protection is to try and protect the trees across the city,” he said.

Although some see the territory’s tree laws as onerous, especially for those lodging development applications, Mr Brice said those enforced by other jurisdictions were generally stricter.

Companies including tree surgeons faced a maximum fine of $1250 for breaching the Tree Protection Act, Mr Brice said.

The penalty for removing native trees is more severe with fines as high as $7000 for an individual under the Native Conservation Act.