Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

Pays/Territoire
Royaume-Uni
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Fév 19, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Court of Appeal
Siège de la cour
London
Juge
MOORE-BICK
DAVID CLARKE
SWEENEY.
Numéro de référence
[2010] EWCA Crim 202
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Déchets et substances dangereuses, Eau, Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Eaux usées/déversement
Résumé
Thames Water appealed a fine of £125,000 imposed upon it for causing polluting matter to enter controlled waters, contrary to Section 85(1) Water Resources Act 1991, following the release of a large quantity of bleach into the River Wandle, which caused significant harm to fish stocks as well as flora and fauna. Thames Water entered a guilty plea, accepting full responsibility for the incident, and in an effort to mitigate the effects of the spill, also pledged £500,000 in compensation to restore the river. At first instance, the Recorder of the Crown Court acknowledged that Thames Water had accumulated 82 previous convictions since 1991 for offences in connection with the discharge of sewage from its premises. In sentencing she concluded that the starting point for a fine, based upon conviction at trial, would have been £250,000, but she reduced this by 50% to £125,000 on account of the guilty plea and mitigation. Thames Water appealed the fine on the basis that the Recorder took too high a starting point, gave too much weight to its previous convictions and took insufficient account of the amount of money pledged in reparation. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a fine of £125,000 was manifestly excessive and that a fine of £50,000 was appropriate taking into account the available guidance and previous cases on environmental sentencing. The Court upheld the ruling in R v Anglian Water Services Ltd [2003] EWCA Crim 2243 that statutory water companies such as Thames Water are subject to a heavy burden to ensure they do not cause the escape of polluting materials from sewage treatment plants into controlled waters. However, the Court acknowledged that there was also a clear policy need to encourage the making of voluntary reparation by offenders, while at the same time ensuring appropriate punishment and deterrence. The Court held that the appropriate level of punishment in cases such as Thames Water, where there is a guilty plea to a single offence, must be decided on the facts of each case, albeit guided in significant part by the principles in Anglian Water, and by the adoption of a six-step principled approach: Assess the seriousness of the offence by reference to its facts, including aggravating and mitigating features. Consider the defendant’s means and identify the amount of a notional fine as it would be after a trial. Consider making a compensation order, and the extent to which this should be in addition to, or deducted from, the notional fine. Consider the extent to which the defendant had learned lessons from the incident or made voluntary reparation, and reflect this by a reduction in the level of the deterrent element of the notional fine. Consider any other mitigating features. Apply the appropriate percentage discount for a guilty plea. In terms of aggravating and mitigating features, the Court noted that there was a large degree of overlap with those that applied to health and safety cases, but added that in environmental cases specific aggravating features would include: Whether the pollutant was noxious, widespread or pervasive, or liable to spread widely or to have long−lasting effects; Whether human health, animal health or flora were adversely affected especially where a protected species was affected, or where a site designated for nature was affected; Whether an extensive clean up operation, site restoration or animal rehabilitation operation was required; and Whether other lawful activities were prevented or significantly interfered with.
Texte intégral
COU-156642.pdf