| Unit 2: The Legal System Within The UK |
|
2.2 Criminal Law Criminal cases have detailed rules. It the Crown Prosecution Service that are the body who prosecutes. It is not necessary here to know the full details of bringing a criminal case to court, although it is suggested that you undertake some reading on the matter in order to ensure that you can appreciate the bigger picture. It is widely assumed that criminal proceedings used in resolving cases of an environmental nature are of little use and that the actual number of are comparatively quite rare. This does not mean, however, that the use of criminal law in environmental cases is without merit. There are many of the cases that highlight the nature of the various breaches in environmental law statutes that bring with them criminal liabilities. A widely used example is through preventing a regulatory authority from exercising its inspection powers. The Environment Agency given powers under s.108-10 of the Environment Act 1995 with powers concerning enforcement and entry to undertake inspections under the 1995 Environment Act. The intentional obstruction of an authorised person in undertaking duties or powers is a criminal offence under s.110. It is now widely held that effective environmental protection can only be achieved through applying the appropriate criminal sanctions, which include massive fines and even imprisonment. It is obvious to see that this is a contentious issue, particularly concerning the issue of undermining criminal law itself, however, it could be useful in socially stigmatising environmental damage. The Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland mainly enforce the criminal aspects of environmental law. In water pollution cases the statutes govern the majority of criminal cases such as in the example of Shell (UK). The necessity for increasing fines, such as in the Shell example is accounted for in the EPA 1990, seeing the growth of fines in the magistrates courts from £2000 to £20 000. The English legal system refers to the majority of criminal offences relating to the environment as strictly liability offences: a common definition of these is Crimes which do not require intention, recklessness or even negligence as to one or more elements in the ruling are known as offences of strict liability or, sometimes, of absolute prohibition. In short, this means that it does not have to be proven that the defendant had complete or even incomplete knowledge of the offence, merely that the particular event had occurred such as in Aschcroft v. Cambro Waste Products [1981] 3 All ER 699. This involved controlled waste disposal without it being necessary for the prosecution to actually prove that the defendant knowingly permitted the deposition of controlled waste which was in breach of the law under s. 3(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The scope of criminal law itself is broad. The legal principle vicarious liability may be used whereby liability may reach further than the individual causing the pollution event to the directors for example, of the company employing that person. The scope of criminal liability under EPA 1990 is to any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person purporting to act in such capacity. Under EPA 1990 there must be proof that the offence committed is with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect by any of those discussed previously. Provisions such as these can be found under s.217(1) of the Water Resources Act, s.210(1) of the Water Industry Act and s.37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974.
The list of criminal offences under environmental law is endless although referring to the statutes
below will give a clearer indication:
|