Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 212 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWCA Crim 2064
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Pitchford LJ, King and Blair JJ

Representation Francis McGrath (instructed by Ennon & Co Solicitors) for the first defendant.
  Francis McGrath (instructed by Joseph Hill & Co) for the second and seventh defendants.
  Denis Barry (instructed by Shepherd Harris Solicitors) for the third and fifth defendants.
  Gordon Ross (instructed by Gans & Co Solicitors) for the fourth defendant.
  The sixth defendant did not appear and was not represented.
  Howard McCann, James Goudie QC and Sailesh Mehta (instructed by The Environment Agency) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 16 October 2012


Criminal Law - Trial - Judge - Defendants being charged with offences of transporting waste - At trial, judge ruling enough evidence to go to jury that each of defendants being: (i) involved in transport; (ii) of waste; and (iii) destined for recovery in Nigeria - Judge further ruling offence being one imposing strict liability - Following ruling, certain defendants pleading guilty and others being convicted - Defendants subsequently appealing against conviction - Whether judge erring in rulings to jury - Council Regulation (EC) 1013/2006 (on shipments of waste), art 36(1) - Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007, reg 23 - Council Directive (EC) 2006/12 (on waste).

The Case

Criminal Law Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing various appeals against conviction for offences of transporting waste, specified in art 36(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1013-2006 (on shipments of waste), contrary to reg 23 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007, held, amongst other things, that the judge's directions had been sufficient in law and had been fairly presented and that the offence created by reg23 of the UK Regulations was one of strict liability.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.