R v W, C and C. País/Territorio Reino Unido Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha May 11, 2010 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Court of Appeal Sede de la corte London Juez HughesMc CombeSharp. Número de referencia [2010] EWCA Crim 927 Idioma Inglés Materia Cuestiones jurídicas, Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave Residuos sólidos Desperdicio de alimentos Desechos orgánicos Eliminación de desechos Infracciones/sanciones Cumplimiento/aplicación Desechos urbanos Residuos industriales Resumen The defendants PC and TC were the owners of a farm set in a Special Area of Conservation, within the highest category of designation. A large quantity of material, consisting mainly of soil and subsoil, was extracted from neighbouring land during construction work there and deposited on a farm owned by PC and TC and managed by the defendant W. No waste management licence under the 1990 Act had been obtained. The Crown alleged that the materials were “controlled waste” within the meaning of the 1990 Act. The defendants case was that the material was received in order to create an area of hard standing for the construction of farm facilities and that it was therefore not waste. S 75(2) of the 1990 Act, as substituted by the s 120(1) of and para 88(2) of Sch 22 to the Environment Act 1995, defined “waste” as any substance or object in Sch 2B to the 1990 Act “which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”, and s 75(4) defined “controlled waste” as “household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste.” The judge found that the status of the material as waste or not fell to be determined according to who was its holder. As the material was received for a specific purpose which was immediately put into effect and there was no element of discarding in the use to which the defendants put the material immediately upon its deposit, there was no evidence to enable a jury to find that the material was waste or controlled waste. The judge therefore accepted the defendants submission that there was no case to answer. On appeal the Crown submitted that “waste” did not cease to be such simply because the recipient had a use for it, as it was still waste until acceptable recovery or disposal had been achieved, and the judges ruling contravened the aims of Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12/EC of 5 April 2006 on waste. The Court of Appeal said that the 1990 Act represented the United Kingdoms transposition of Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12/EC. The essential objective of the waste management provisions of the Directive was the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste. The question of immediate re-use of the relevant material could not be entirely determinative of the status of the material regardless of other considerations. Material might well remain as waste which had to be disposed of in some manner notwithstanding an immediate intention of the recipient to re-use it. The term “discard” was to be interpreted in the light of the aims of the Directive and material which was originally waste would continue to be so treated until acceptable recovery or disposal had been achieved in accordance with the aims of the Directive. Whether that occurred was a question of fact for the jury. The possibility of re-use at some indefinite future time did not alter its status. Actual re-use might do so, but only if consistent with the aims and objectives of the 1990 Act and of the Directive to avoid harm to persons or the environment. Which of those objectives were relevant to an individual case depended on the cases presented by the parties. The judge had erred in concentrating entirely upon the intentions of the defendants as holders to put the material to immediate use after deposit and in finding that it could not be waste because there was no element of discarding in that immediate use. There was evidence on which the jury could find that the materials were waste which was required to be disposed of by the producers and hauliers transporting it and that the defendants received payment to relieve that need. If satisfied that it was waste at that stage, the further question of fact for the jury was whether, having regard to the aims of the Directive, the materials ceased to be waste, no longer being discarded by anyone, which was being subjected to acceptable recovery or disposal. All would depend on the facts of the individual case. Having regard to the definitions contained in s 75 of the 1990 Act, there was ample evidence that, if waste at all, the materials were “controlled waste” as being “industrial waste” from “premises used for agriculture” (s 75(6)(e), as inserted by the Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/937)) and or “waste arising from works of construction or demolition, including waste arising from work preparatory thereto” (s 75(7)(8) and reg 5(2) of the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/588)). For those reasons the defence submission of no case had been wrongly accepted. Texto completo COU-156644.pdf