Regina v Kelleher. Country/Territory United Kingdom Type of court Others Date Nov 6, 2008 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Court of Appeal Seat of court London Judge Swift Reference number [2008] EWCA Crim 3055 Language English Subject Waste & hazardous substances, Legal questions Keyword Solid waste Food waste Organic waste Waste disposal Offences/penalties Enforcement/compliance Waste domestic sources Waste non-domestic sources Abstract On 7 May 2008, at the Inner London Crown Court, the appellant, who is 40 years old and has no previous convictions, pleaded guilty on re-arraignment after the jury had been sworn to one offence of conspiracy to deposit controlled waste unlawfully contrary to section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the 1990 Act). On 12 June 2008 he was sentenced to fourteen months' imprisonment. Fifteen counts charging offences of knowingly causing controlled waste to be deposited on land were ordered to remain on the file on the usual terms. A co-accused, Patrick Anderson, who pleaded guilty at the same stage to the same offence, was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment. The appellant and Patrick Anderson were the organisers, over an 18 month period, of a wide scale operation unlawfully to deposit controlled waste material (commonly known as "fly-tipping") onto sites in areas of the north and east of London. In sentencing the appellant, the judge observed that the case was at the extreme end of fly-tipping. It had become an operation which was almost industrial, and certainly commercial, in its scale. He had no doubt that immediate prison sentences were called for, for what he described as "such flagrant, eyes open, wrongdoing". He referred to the large quantities of waste deposited, the length of time over which the activity had continued and the estimated cost of the clean up. Sophisticated devices and disguises were used to give the appearance of lawful dumping, along with some concealment of the offenders' tracks. The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the full court The Grounds of Appeal contend that the sentence was manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle in that it failed to give proper weight to factors including the appellant's personal mitigation and good character and to the absence of aggravating features, including, but not limited to, the absence of material of a dangerous or offensive nature or waste which had a long-lasting effect on the environment. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against sentence. It was held that fly tipping has become a serious problem because the lawful disposal of waste is expensive. Those who dispose of waste unlawfully stand to make large profits at the expense of the environment. The Court noted that the unlawful depositing in this case was carefully organised and took place over an extended period. While the material deposited did not give rise to health risk or long term environmental damage the Judge was right to say this was “a very serious case of its type” and thus the sentence could not be said to be manifestly excessive. Penalties must therefore be sufficient to deter such profiteering and to protect landowners against the clean up costs. Full text COU-156446.pdf