The magistrates had concluded that the movement of waste, previously tipped by others in the entrance to the Respondents’ field, did not amount to a ‘deposit’, within s.33(1)(a) of the 1990 Act. The Council appealed against dismissal of it summonses.
Held: The appeal failed. No question of law was involved in the interpretation of the word ‘deposit’; on the facts, the magistrates’ conclusion was ‘perfectly reasonable’. Aikens LJ said that ‘deposit’ is an ‘ordinary and uncomplicated English word . .’ and ‘We cannot impose our own exegesis on the meaning of the word and then apply our meaning to the facts as found by the justices’.
Aikens LJ, Calvert-Smith J
[2011] EWHC 1967 (Admin), [2011] Env LR 31
Bailii
Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.442700 br>