Crown Courts ease off on environmental offences

Fines imposed for environmental offences vary widely around the country, according to research for the Environment Department (DEFRA). Fines set by magistrates are rising slowly from a low base - but the Crown Courts appear to be taking an increasingly lenient approach to sentencing.

The Environment Agency and Ministers have complained repeatedly that fines for environmental offences are too low to act as a deterrent. The new study, carried out by consultants ERM, was intended to provide evidence to inform possible action to improve the consistency and proportionality of sentencing.

The report adds to a growing body of research which is pointing to a fundamental rethink about the structures and processes of environmental law in Britain. Recent DEFRA-sponsored studies have considered the case for an environmental tribunal (ENDS Report 341, pp 3-4 ), proposals for civil fines for environmental offences (ENDS Report 346, p 7 ) and the adequacy of current arrangements for access to justice (ENDS Report 345, p 6 ).

ERM found considerable difficulty in gathering full and consistent data on sentencing and court practices. Information on prosecutions brought by local authorities is particularly patchy, and is not included in the overall figures.

The research gathered information on fines and sentences in England and Wales between 1999 and 2002. Areas covered included industrial pollution control, water pollution, waste management, statutory nuisances, contaminated land and hazardous substances and installations. Wildlife offences were also investigated.

ERM identified 6,283 offences in the four-year period. Over 90% of the prosecutions were brought by the Environment Agency.

The total number of offences has increased steadily. The Crown Courts ruled on 48 offences in 1999 rising to 252 in 2002, while the number before magistrates rose from 798 to 1,550.

Custodial sentences were imposed for just 1.2% of offences, while 68% resulted in fines. More than 80% of offences involving companies resulted in a fine.

  • Magistrates courts: Here ERM found a general increase in the average fine per offence - from £1,979 in 1999 to £2,730 in 2002, but well below the £20,000 maximum available for most offences. Average fines for pollution offences are higher, and rose from about £2,400 to almost £3,000 over the four years.

    Sentencing guidelines for magistrates were issued in 2001 and reinforced by guidance from the Magistrates Association in late 2002 (ENDS Report 335, p 55 ). ERM suggests this may have come too late to have a clear impact in the period covered by the survey.

    However, ERM conducted a limited case study at one magistrates' court in the south-east of England which suggests that the guidelines are not fully accepted. Fewer than a quarter of the 32 magistrates surveyed appeared reasonably aware of the guidelines - and more than one third were unaware of them.

    The study confirms that magistrates have a very low level of exposure to environmental offences. Such cases typically accounted for just half a dozen of the 3,500 cases heard in the case study area each year - which is covered by 149 magistrates.

  • Crown Courts: In contrast to magistrates, the Crown Courts appear to be imposing more lenient sentences than a few years ago. The average fine per offence dropped sharply from around £8,500 in 1999 and 2000 to £4,500-5,000 in the following two years.

    ERM found that the trend is the same even when abnormally large fines, which could distort the picture, are set aside. The number of custodial sentences also fell sharply after a peak in 2000.

    The consultants speculate that magistrates may have been referring a greater number of less serious cases to the higher courts. They suggest that guidance on sentencing for environmental offences could be developed for the Crown Court.

  • Regional variations: One significant finding was that the average fine varied by a factor of three between the nine regions (see figure).

    The highest average fines were imposed in London and Eastern England, at £4,800 and £3,600, respectively - two of the areas with the lowest number of offences. In contrast, fines in Wales and the North-East averaged just £1,650 and £2,000 - though these two areas accounted for over one-third of all prosecutions.

    The variability is particularly acute in the Crown Courts. In Wales, which accounted for a quarter of the 692 cases brought to Crown Court, the average fine was a paltry £1,874. In contrast, the 18 offences heard in London's Crown Courts attracted an average fine of £52,167.

    The willingness to impose fines also varied sharply. In the West Midlands, the Crown Courts imposed a fine for only 24% of offences - although offenders in the region had a relatively high chance of ending up with a custodial sentence.

  • Costs: The average costs awarded were £1,600 per offence. Higher costs were awarded in the East Midlands, but the figure fell to £1,000 or less in the South East and South West.

    Magistrates awarded costs in a fairly constant 72-74% of cases. Again, however, the Crown Courts appear to be showing increasing sympathy for defendants. While costs were awarded in 81% of cases in 1999, the figure fell to just 42% in 2002.

  • Local authorities: In light of the lack of a centralised database of local authority prosecutions, ERM carried out a survey. The response from 73 authorities allows some general trends to be identified.

    Local authorities appear to be carrying out few prosecutions. Over the last 4.5 years, 23% of respondents brought no prosecution, and 27% fewer than five. Lack of time, resources and legal support were widely cited as the main barriers to prosecution.

    Another DEFRA survey issued in December suggests that fines for prosecutions under local air pollution control fell sharply in 2002/03 (see p 11 ).

  • Environmental law reform: ERM's findings were presented at a seminar on environmental law reform organised by the Centre for Law and the Environment at University College London.

    Donald Macrae, DEFRA's head of legal services, expressed cautious interest in many of the recent proposals for legal reform. However, he stressed, other Departments would need to be convinced that "environmental issues are sufficiently distinctive to justify separate treatment within the justice system."

    Mr Macrae accepted that the complexity of environmental law strengthened the case. However, he questioned "whether that means we automatically need a new institution such as a tribunal" - and cautioned that "lawyerification" of any tribunal system could remove some of the apparent benefits. Instead, he suggested that expert assessors could be appointed to help courts in environmental cases.

    In public at least, DEFRA insists that current arrangements should satisfy the 1998 Aarhus Convention's

    requirements on access to environmental justice. Many environmental lawyers disagree - and the UK's ongoing failure to ratify the Convention suggests that their concerns are shared within Whitehall.

    New proposals from the European Commission could force a resolution (ENDS Report 346, p 56 ).

  • Please sign in or register to continue.

    Sign in to continue reading

    Having trouble signing in?

    Contact Customer Support at
    report@ends.co.uk
    or call 020 8267 8120

    Subscribe for full access

    or Register for limited access

    Already subscribe but don't have a password?
    Activate your web account here