The House of Commons’ Justice Committee has come out in support of tougher sentencing for environmental offences, including fly-tipping.
Following a 12-week consultation, the committee’s report, ‘Environmental Offences Guideline: Consultation’, published 19 July, recommends custodial sentences for some crimes although it does not set out the levels of the possible punitive measures.
A letter in the report from Joan Walley MP, Chair, Environmental Audit Committee, to the Chair of the Justice Committee, states: ‘We share the concern that has been expressed by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and others that because the scope of environmental offences is so wide, the categories of harm are described in fairly generic terms, which may make it difficult for magistrates to categorise offences, especially those involving noise, where no physical damage may be caused. The categories of harm should therefore be amended to take into account the effect of an offence on "human health and wellbeing", not simply the tangible environmental damage.’
The core offences are those under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Regulations 1 and 38 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, which cover unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal, etc of waste and illegal discharges to air, land and water. The draft guideline also covers analogous, but less frequently committed, offences.
Environmental offences
The Chair of the committee, Sir Alan Beith MP, said: “This draft Guideline covers a wide range of offences ranging from fly-tipping to large scale hazardous waste offences, and the sentences appropriate for individuals may be quite different from those appropriate for a large company. Although there was a case for treating some of these issues separately, there was a clear desire from magistrates to have a framework of guidance. Crimes that damage the environment and endanger public safety are taken seriously by the courts and I hope that the final version of the Guideline will assist them in doing so.”
In its letter to the Sentencing Council, the committee concluded that the Guideline for Environmental Offences could well be taken as guidance for other crimes such as health and safety offences. It states that this “leakage” from the final Guideline into sentencing practice in relation to non-Guideline offences is likely.
In respect of corporate offenders, the MPs’ report states that although a company’s turnover can be taken as the starting point for categorising sentence tariffs, other financial information would need to be taken into account in appropriate cases. It suggests that a short glossary of basic financial terms, and the inclusion either in the final guideline or in other guidance of some mock financial documents with a worked example would assist sentencers, in particular magistrates, who may be unfamiliar with financial information.
The report’s authors state that the final guidance will seek to ensure consistent sentencing is applied throughout England and Wales.
Get our weekly digest
resource.co article ai
How will the government and DMOs address the challenges of including glass in DRS while ensuring a level playing field across the UK?
There's no easy solution to include glass in the DRS while maintaining a level playing field. Potential approaches include a phased introduction of glass, potentially with higher deposits to reflect its logistical challenges. The government and DMOs could incentivise innovation in glass packaging design and subsidise dedicated return points for glass-handling. Exemptions for smaller businesses unable to handle glass might also be necessary. Any successful solution will likely blend several approaches. It must address the differing priorities of devolved administrations, balance environmental benefits with logistical and cost implications, and be supported by robust consumer education campaigns emphasizing the importance of glass recycling.