Celebrating Bisexuality Visibility Day!
In March 2020 SWS had pleaded guilty to 51 offences of breaching its environmental permits under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/675) (‘the Regulations’) between 2010 and 2015. SWS admitted to causing 6,971 illegal discharges of waste water over the offending period across 17 sites in Hampshire, Kent and West Sussex. These discharges, which lasted a total of 61,704 hours, were made into numerous conservation sites and protected areas, causing major environmental harm. Discharges into designated shellfish waters also adversely affected businesses which harvest the shellfish for human consumption, since the pollution caused the deterioration of shellfish quality.
This latest enforcement action follows further recent penalties imposed on Thames Water for similar offences which saw the company fined £4 million in May 2021, £2.3 million in March 2021, £2 million in July 2019, and £20 million in March 2017, then the largest water pollution case brought by the Environment Agency. SWS itself has 168 previous convictions or cautions under environmental legislation.
The maximum fine for the relevant offences under the Regulations is unlimited. The court will determine the level of fine with reference to the sentencing guidelines (‘the Guidelines’). These are discussed below with reference to how they appear to have been applied in the current case.
The Guidelines provide that the court must first assess the culpability of the company as either deliberate, reckless, negligent or of low/no culpability.
Reports on this case indicate that SWS’s conduct was determined by the court to have been deliberate.
The severity of harm caused by the offence is determined with reference to four categories, ranging from major, significant, minor and indicating only a risk of harm.
Reporting on the present case indicates that the various offences by SWS in the relevant period were found to have caused major harm, Category 1 in the Guidelines. This requires there to have been major damage to water quality and pollution that was widespread and pervasive with long lasting effects on human health or quality of life, animal health or flora.
The size of the defendant determines the starting point and range of any fine, with larger companies susceptible to receiving larger fines. Under the Guidelines a ‘large’ company, meaning one with a turnover or equivalent of £50 million and over, where their culpability has been assessed as ‘Deliberate’ and the harm level as ‘Category 1’ has a fine starting point of £1,000,000 with a range of £450,000 to £3,000,000. However, the Guidelines also provide that for ‘very large organisations’, where the defendant company’s turnover very greatly exceeds the threshold for ‘large’ companies, it is possible to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence. Given that SWS reported a turnover of £878 million in 2019-20 it appears evident that the court, in determining sentence, felt it appropriate to fine SWS on this basis.
Aggravating factors include having previous convictions, a history of non-compliance and warnings by the regulator, and the deliberate concealment of illegal activity. In delivering the sentence, Mr Justice Johnson stated that SWS’s offences were “aggravated by its previous persistent pollution of the environment over very many years”. The court was also told that SWS had deliberately presented a misleading picture of compliance to the Environment Agency. Indeed, SWS was fined £37.7 million in 2019 by Ofwat, the water sector regulator, for deliberately misreporting on the performance of its waste water treatment works.
In mitigation, SWS apologised and said it is committed to transparency, transformation and cultural change.
The court should consider whether there should be any reduction in sentence for assistance provided to the prosecution. Similarly, the court should take into account any potential reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. In the present case, SWS pleaded guilty to the offences.
Given the court’s overall assessment of the offending, it is perhaps of little surprise that such a large fine was imposed. Whilst the fine imposed marks a significant increase from the previous record fine given to a water company, this case marks the continuation of a trend seeing an increasingly punitive approach taken by the courts towards water companies guilty of pollution offences.
For more information on any issues raised in this blog post, please contact a member of our Criminal Litigation team.
Jonathan Grimes is a criminal lawyer specialising in serious and complex criminal cases. He represents individuals and organisations in all areas of financial services and business crime as well as health and safety and related areas. He also continues to advise in a wide variety of other criminal law matters with a particular emphasis on cases with an international aspect, including war crimes, extradition and INTERPOL. He provides advice during investigations, attending hundreds of interviews of many different kinds in the course of his career, and is experienced in defending prosecutions brought by a range of law enforcement agencies.
Charlie Roe is a trainee solicitor. He is currently in his fourth seat in the Criminal Litigation team, after having spent his first seat in the Regulatory team, his second seat in the Employment team and his third seat in the Public Law team.
On 20 July 2021 Vue Entertainment Ltd (‘Vue’) was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay costs of £130,000 following a fatal accident at the Star City cinema in Birmingham on 9 March 2018.
On 9 July 2021 Southern Water Services Ltd (SWS) was fined £90 million, to be paid out of company operating profits, in what was the largest fine ever imposed on a water company.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period April 2021 - June 2021.
The recent case of R v Wood Limited Treatment highlights the problems faced by prosecution authorities in proving causation for the purposes of establishing criminal liability for corporate manslaughter.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross section of news stories in the period Jan 2021 - March 2021.
In late February 2021 a news article reported that a care home worker had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a patient died of COVID-19. In late March 2021, two further care home workers were arrested on suspicion of wilful neglect. We look at how those working in care homes can potentially face criminal liability in respect of COVID-19 cases.
Thames Water was sentenced on Friday 26 February 2021 to a fine of £2.3m and ordered to pay costs of almost £90,000. The case is noteworthy both because of the level of the fine imposed and because the Environment Agency (“EA”) uses criminal prosecutions as a means of enforcement relatively rarely.
On 4 November 2020, the Food Standards Agency (“FSA”) launched a consultation seeking views on proposed changes to the offences for non-compliance under the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”).
On 28 October 2020 the Environment Agency (“EA”) announced that a consignment of 21 waste containers, which were illegally shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, had been successfully returned to their point of origin in the UK.
Sentinel Health Care Limited has pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to provide safe care and treatment, resulting in avoidable harm, to resident Andrew Clegg and a further charge of failing to provide safe care and treatment exposing other service users, to a significant risk of avoidable harm.
On 29 September 2020 it was announced that the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”) had accepted a Crown Censure from the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) after a 26 year old marine died during a training exercise.
Brother and sister Mark and Rachel Penfold were directors of a waste management company. In February 2016 an employee of the business suffered a serious injury when his arm was caught in a conveyer he was operating whilst at work. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the company and both individuals under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).
The Environment Agency’s (“EA”) 2 October 2020 annual report provides sober reading for the nine water and waste service companies operating in England. After the 2019 report’s finding that performance across the sector was already ‘unacceptable’, the 2020 report concluded that all, without exception, had continued to deteriorate.
On 1 October, the Fire Safety Bill had its second reading and debate in the House of Lords. The Bill is short but introduces important new measures.
West Midlands Police have announced that Alutrade Limited, a specialist recycler of aluminium, is to be charged with corporate manslaughter over the death of Stuart Towns in July 2017. The last conviction of a company for corporate manslaughter was in 2017.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”), Alok Sharma, announced this week that non-essential shops will be allowed to open from 15 June. Mr Sharma also stated that if shops do not follow COVID-secure guidelines they could be subject to enforcement notices. What does this mean?
As we move through the phased easing of lockdown, employers and employees will be anxious to ensure that the return to the workplace does not exacerbate the risk of infection. Businesses do not want to find themselves falling foul of the law, and with news last month that the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE” – the body responsible for regulating and enforcing health and safety legislation) has been bolstered with £14m extra funding, it is more important than ever to manage the risks.
It is just over two years since the publication of Dame Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. Following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, the Government commissioned a report to make recommendations on the regulatory system covering high rise and complex buildings.
The sad news on Monday evening that one of the world’s iconic historical buildings was engulfed in flames caused many to question whether other historical buildings around the world are vulnerable to the same fate.
At the end of 2017, the Justice Committee published its report on the Sentencing Council’s draft guidelines on manslaughter.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility