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.
Held: The appeals failed. Once a substance or object has been discarded (and has therefore become waste) the question whether it has changed its status is one of objective fact. However, the fact of which the jury must be sure (by regulation 23 applying Art 2 of the EC 2006 Regulation) is that the substance or object is one which the ‘holder discards or intends . . to discard’.
The trial judge must adapt his directions to the jury so as eliminate the apparent contradictions between the words used and their purposeful interpretation. On the facts of the present case these collectors/holders had loaded the containers for consignment to Nigeria. The issue whether they had ‘discarded or intended to discard’ the objects within the containers could only be resolved by answering the question whether what they had done to those objects before loading rendered them non-waste. What matters is whether the holder takes some action or intends to take some action with respect to the items which has changed their status. Whether the holder discards or intends to discard the items is judged by what he did with them and not by his subjective belief that he was discarding them (or would be discarding them) or not.
‘We do not rule out that there will be cases in which proof of the intention of the holder is necessary. This, in our view, was not one of them. The judge rightly directed the jury that they should examine the question whether the items had been subjected to any process, such as inspection, testing and/or repair, which may have changed their status.’
Pitchford LJ, King, Blair JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 2064
Bailii
European Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006, Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 23
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Arco Chemie Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening in Milieubeheer ECJ 15-Jun-2000
ECJ Environment – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of ‘waste’.
Advocate General Alber said: ‘The concept of waste underlying Community law on waste is defined in article 1(a) of Directive . .
Cited – Regina (Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd) v Environment Agency and Another; Corus (UK) Ltd and Another, Interveners ECJ 19-Jun-2003
The applicants took in ferrous scrap, sorted and cut it, selling it on to processors who would use the material in a second stage recycling process to produce ingots. The claimed entitlement to credit under the regulations.
Held: The second . .
Cited – Criminal Proceedings Against G Vessoso And G Zanetti ECJ 28-Mar-1990
ECJ The concept of waste, within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442 and Article 1 of Directive 78/319, is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Tombesi and others ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93
Waste includes substances discarded by their owners, even if they ”have a commercial value and are . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallonne ECJ 18-Dec-1997
ECJ Member States are required to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the results prescribed by a Directive, even though the date for its implementation has not yet expired.
The . .
Cited – Palin Granit Oy v Vehmassalon kansaterveystyon kuntayhtyman hallitus ECJ 18-Apr-2002
Harmonisation of laws – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of waste – Production residue – Quarry – Storage – Use of waste – No risk to health or the environment – Possibility of recovery of waste . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Wallonie And Terre Wallonne v Region Wallonne ECJ 8-Dec-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Protection of the environment – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution . .
Cited – OSS Group Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Environment Agency and others CA 28-Jun-2007
Once lubricating oil had been processed into fuel oil suitable for burning, it ceased to be waste so as to require it to be handled and stored as waste.
Held: Carnwath LJ discussed the meaning of the term ‘discards or intends . . to discard’. . .
Cited – Environment Agency v Thorn International UK Ltd Admn 2-Jul-2008
The Agency appealed by case stated against the Magistrates’ decision to acquit Thorn of keeping controlled waste contrary to section 33 of the 1990 Act. For that section ‘waste’ had the same meaning as that provided in Art 1(1)(a) of the WFD. The . .
Cited – 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 – Evan Jones and Another, Regina v CACD 2011
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 . .
Cited – Environment Agency v Inglenorth Ltd Admn 17-Mar-2009
Mr Evans, had demolished a greenhouse at his garden centre. He engaged a haulier, the respondent, to carry the rubble to his other garden centre site to form the base of a car park. The haulier was charged with the unlawful deposit of controlled . .
Cited – Gammon v The Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1984
(Hong kong) The court considered the need at common law to show mens rea. A Hong Kong Building Ordinance created offences of strict liability in pursuit of public safety which strict liability was calculated to promote.
Held: Lord Scarman . .
Cited – 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 . .
Approved – KV and Others v Regina CACD 19-Oct-2011
Cranston J said: ‘The issue before us is whether the judge was correct in ruling at a preparatory hearing for the trial that regulation 23 of the UK Regulations and article 36 of the EU Regulation catch all those who are involved in transporting . .
Approved – Regina v Jackson CACD 17-Oct-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction for low flying contrary to the 1955 Act, saying that it had been treated wrongly as an offence of strict liability.
Held: Hooper LJ said: ‘Whilst it is always possible to adumbrate situations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Environment
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.464904