Contact Us

HBR Head Office
7 Appleton Court, Calder Park,
Wakefield, WF2 7AR

Telephone: 01924 250 132

Fax: 01924 251 394

email: enquiries@hbrlimited.co.uk

Blackwell Southern Regional Office

Coggeshall Road, Earls Colne
Essex, CO6 2JX

Telephone: 01787 222768

Fax: 01787 224391

email: enquiries@hbrlimited.co.uk
Blackwell Midlands and South West Regional Office
4 Bredon Court, Brockeridge Park,
Twyning, Gloucestershire
GL20 6FF

Telephone: 0844 482 9685

email: enquiries@hbrlimited.co.uk
Blackwell Scottish Regional Office
Broken Cross,
Douglas Water,
Lanark
ML11 9PB

Telephone: 01324 483713

email: enquiries@hbrlimited.co.uk
HBR Certificates

Sentencing guidance for environmental crime – you have been warned

There has long been a concern about the lack of guidance available to the courts in the UK (especially, magistrates’ courts) when it comes to sentencing for environmental offences, in comparison to other crimes (such as theft or assault). This has meant that similar examples of environmental wrongdoing have received greatly varying levels of fines and custodial terms depending on where the defendant has been sentenced, with some punishments arguably not reflecting the seriousness of the harm caused.

In response, on 14 March, the Sentencing Council launched a consultation (which runs until 6 June) on a draft set of sentencing guidelines for the two sets of environmental offences most frequently encountered by the courts: waste offences under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (such as fly-tipping) and offences of operating a regulated facility or of discharging to water or groundwater without an environmental permit under regulations 12 and 38 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

The draft guidelines set out a nine-step procedure for a court considering sentencing under one of these offences:

  1. – What are the principal characteristics (i.e. harm and culpability) of the offence?
  2. – The court should ensure that the fine reflects not only the elements of step 1, but also the financial means of the defendant and any aggravating or mitigating factors.
  3. – Are there any factors which would merit adjustment of the fine (e.g. the impact of any fine upon the defendant’s employees)?
  4. – Are there any factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance given to the prosecution?
  5. – The court should consider some reduction for a ‘guilty’ plea.
  6. – The court must consider making a compensation and/or ancillary order, such as an order to carry out remediation work or a director’s disqualification order.
  7. – If the court is sentencing the defendant for more than one offence, what would be the effect of this punishment upon the cumulative weight of the sentence?
  8. – The court must give reasons for the level of the sentence.
  9. – The court must consider whether to give credit for any time spent on bail.

It is almost inevitable that the courts will, initially, require additional time to consider the steps and this may lead to a delay in sentencing for the first cases that utilize the guidelines.

 For the full article use the link below

Lexology

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3bb8cc33-bf1f-4204-b988-2026e080f5c0