An employee of the appellant had deposited a number of black bags containing commercial office waste on the land adjoining the appellant’s own premises. The prosecutor said that the deposit of the bags of waste in those circumstances amounted to an ‘escape’ within the meaning of section 34(1)(b).
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. The issue was whether or not the deposit of waste in those circumstances could amount to an ‘escape’. Linguistically the word ‘escape’ was simply not apt to denote a deliberate act of depositing waste, and did not extend to cover deliberate dumping of waste; the environmental wrong constituted by deliberate dumping was ‘it would seem’ covered by section 33(1)(a) of the Act.
Laws LJ
[2004] EWHC 597 (Admin), [2004] Env LR 42
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a) 34
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Camden v Mortgage Times Group Ltd Admn 3-Jul-2006
The defendant was a producer of controlled waste. It had left waste out for collection. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal of the defendant for failing to prevent escape of such waste.
Held: The appeal failed. The prosecutor had to show . .
Cited – Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Bromley Magistrates’ Court Admn 20-Mar-2013
Sewage had escaped from the company’s facilities. They now sought judicial review of their conviction under the 1990 Act, saying there had been no ‘deposit’ of sewage.
Held: The request for review failed: ‘the answer to the question whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Environment
Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.195551
