environmental focus 47
Fines for environmental crimes – the gloves are off
The common theme running through the recent changes to legislation and guidelines on sentencing is that large businesses must step up their efforts to improve their regulatory compliance, or else potentially pay a hefty price, says Penningtons Manches environmental law partner Richard Smith
In the past, less serious regulatory offences were tried in the magistrates’ courts, where the cap on fines at £20,000 proved to be a mere slap on the wrists for big businesses. Now, however, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 gives magistrates powers to issue unlimited fines.
The Court of Appeal decision in R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] illustrates the new, tougher sentencing judges are willing to impose. At first instance, the court found Thames Water to have been negligent in its failure to replace faulty pumps, which ultimately led to the discharge of untreated sewage into a National Trust nature reserve. Thames Water appealed the judgment, but it was upheld
by the Court of Appeal. This is the first case of its kind to come before a court since the Sentencing Council published its new Definitive Guideline for Environmental Offences in July 2014.
The Court of Appeal rejected the mechanistic approach used by the initial court to calculate the appropriate fine to impose on Thames Water, classified as a ’very large’ organisation by virtue of its £1.9 billion turnover. Instead, it focused on the purposes behind sentencing, as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which requires that the financial circumstances of the offender are considered before determining the appropriate fine. The judgment underlines that the penalty imposed should bring home to the
Business community urged to support nature project
An environmental charity is appealing to Thames Valley businesses to support an innovative series of events aimed at helping children and families access and enjoy the natural world on their doorstep.
A pilot project held in 2015 at eight different sites across Oxfordshire attracted more than 1,000 parents and youngsters, but plans for 2016 are in jeopardy unless further funding can be found.
Fiona Danks, director at the Trust for Oxfordshire’s Environment (TOE2), which co-organised the project with the Earth Trust, says it’s a great opportunity for businesses to demonstrate their corporate social responsibility and make a real difference.
“The pilot project and the tremendous feedback we had showed how involving the local community and providing practical support and ideas can hugely increase the number of
people engaging with nature on their doorstep,” she said.
“If we can secure backing for the year ahead, then we can bring the natural world to many more families throughout the county and, in turn, give them a better understanding of why these places are important and need to be looked after.
“We’d be delighted to hear from any businesses who want to pledge their support and help encourage future generations to enjoy the great outdoors.”
Among the companies already supporting TOE2 is Grundon Waste Management, which provides ongoing funding for a variety of projects through the Landfill Communities Fund.
Entitled “Come out and Play” sessions, activities included pond and stream dipping, den building, bug hunting, mud pie making and wild art, with venues stretching across Oxfordshire,
THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE – THAMES VALLEY – DECEMBER 15/JANUARY 16
from Witney in the west, through to Oxford, Thame and Abingdon.
As well as delivering outdoor learning, the project also provided training and resources for local community members, such as youth workers and local conservation volunteers, enabling them to run their own similar events in the future.
Danks says the project has huge potential to give people the inspiration and confidence to explore the wild spaces on their doorsteps, bringing health and wellbeing benefits, as well as simply having fun.
management and shareholders the need to protect the environment.
The second important point to highlight from the judgment is the consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors. Weight will be given to previous convictions while there are certain specific ways in which companies can behave which will significantly reduce the level of penalty imposed. Companies are expected to hold up their hands following any wrongdoing and face the consequences of their actions.
The change in attitude is most likely to affect non-compliant businesses with a turnover exceeding £50 million but is also expected to influence decisions on
“Many children and families are very disconnected from the natural world, yet contact with wild spaces provides opportunities for exercise, relaxation, creativity, problem- solving, understanding risk and increased understanding of our place in the world,” she concluded.
“Having had such a success last year, it would be a real shame if we are unable to build on that platform for the future.”
Providing funding is forthcoming, plans for 2016 include running repeat sessions at the existing sites and expanding into new ones throughout Oxfordshire where possible; identifying and cultivating local volunteers and champions who can become involved in running projects; and creating much greater awareness of the sites via social media campaigns.
To find out more, contact Fiona Danks or visit the website.
Details: fiona.danks@
trustforoxfordshire.org.uk
www.trustforoxfordshire.org.uk www.businessmag.co.uk
fines for organisations with a lower turnover.
Not only must a company’s systems be sufficiently robust to avert the risk of committing regulatory offences; when breaches do occur, it must be able to take swift action to mitigate the harm caused, and the corresponding penalties imposed.
Details: Richard Smith 01865-722106
richard.smith@
penningtons.co.uk www.penningtons.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56