Surplus soil and subsoil from a pipeline excavation was hauled by the appellants to other land where it was tipped. The hauliers were convicted of depositing controlled waste contrary to section 33(1) of the 1990 Act. The complaint was that the judge had misdirected the jury by saying: ‘In law, an intention to pass on to another that material for that other to use it, nor even an intention to sell, does not amount to such alteration of status by way of intended use as to remove the material from the category of waste. It remains waste in the hands of the haulier up to and including this deposit of it. Further, it remains waste thereafter unless and until some event happens which you can say there is a sufficient proportion to have altered it.’
Held: The jury had been misdirected. Toulson LJ explained: ‘In our judgment the correct analysis is, as was put by Davis J in argument and is supported by paragraph 36 of the judgment in W, C and C, that at the time when B is about to deposit the material on C’s land, the conduct of B in bringing the material to that point, coupled with the purpose of C in receiving the material, is capable of bringing about a change in the status of the material for the purposes of the relevant statutory regime, so that at that time the material will have ceased to be waste, subject to the nature of the material and subject to the nature of the intended reuse and its potential environmental impact. Accordingly, we accept the submission that the judge’s direction was a misdirection.’
Toulson LJ, Davis J and HH Judge Bevan
[2011] EWCA Crim 3294
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – W, C and C, Regina v CACD 11-May-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a finding of no case to answer. The defendants were accused in relation to the deposit on farm land of soil and sub-soil excavated during construction works on other land. The defendants included the works manager and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ezeemo and Others v Regina CACD 16-Oct-2012
The defendants had been charged with offences relating to their intended transporting of waste materials to Nigeria. They appealed, complaining that the judge had directed that the offence under regulation 23 was an offence of strict liability.
Crime, Environment
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.464927
