DOMINIC McNABB, Environmental Regulator
Dominic is an experienced solicitor in private practice with MJP solicitors. He has more than 20 years of experience defending both individuals and companies, in both criminal and regulatory legal-related matters.
07733 264226 |
dominic.mcnabb@
mjpsolicitors.co.uk LAW
Cooperating to help the crackdown on waste crime
I WAS recently arguing with my better half and readers will be unsurprised to note that I had to eventually accept defeat to save face and keep the peace. I then launched myself into work mode to occupy my mind – and then I was also asked by the editor of Skip Hire & Waste Magazine for this month’s contribution. So I make no apologies for the tone of this article as a result.
One of the clients who contacted me has been having some problems with the Environment Agency (EA). It is a personal view of mine that there are increasing problems in seeking any common ground with the EA in respect of certain operations.
In the past, the EA regularly displayed a willingness to work with the individual or company to address problems and suggest compromises given the bigger picture (the degree of environmental harm done, the effect of prosecution on the company and employees, etc) rather than seeking to prosecute immediately. However, we should be cautious about assuming this will continue now that the EA is working so closely in concert with HMRC to penalise waste crime.
We have already seen evidence that both organisations are taking this partnership
50
seriously. For example, EA enforcement officers are required to wear body-worn cameras when tackling incidents with the intention of helping to tackle waste crime by spotting any sudden environment changes that could indicate illegal dumping.
In my recent research, I have noticed that the recent guidance available on sanctions and enforcement has been withdrawn on the government website and is yet to be replaced. This appears to coincide with the new policy of co- operation on joint operations between the EA and HMRC and may be because the guidance is inconsistent with the purpose of the policy.
As I have pointed out previously, anyone subject to enquiries since 11 April 2018 needs to be careful how to respond and have, at times, suggested that the early intervention of lawyers can help matters from progressing further.
Given the effect of sentencing, and the fact that new guidance has led to an increased level of financial penalties (and the potential for further penalties as a result of landfill tax avoidance), it is probably wise for operators to be more vigilant than ever and consider carefully any potential investigations or
“
enquiries by the EA so as to avoid falling into the sights of a prosecution. In my experience, once a decision has been made to prosecute or the operator has been designated a waste criminal, it is very hard to persuade the regulator that their actions are out of proportion to the actual harm done.
As I have pointed out previously, anyone subject to enquiries since 11 April 2018 needs to be careful how to respond and have, at times, suggested that the early intervention of lawyers can help matters from progressing further.
“
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
