Search

BLOG

Large Corporations Beware – New Court of Appeal Decision Could go as High as 100% Pre-tax Profit

Blog image

At the beginning of June, the Court of Appeal handed down the judgment of R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 960.  This case provides the first analysis of the Definitive Guideline for Environmental Offences by the Sentencing Council which was published in July 2014, and also provided guidance on the admission of adducing fresh evidence pursuant to s.23 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968.

Sentencing of Companies with Large Turnover

For the purposes of sentencing, the Definitive Guideline for Environmental Offences by the Sentencing Council (the Guideline) divides organisations up into four categories; micro, small, medium and large (defined as having a turnover of £50 million or more).

In the judgment, Mr Justice Mitting observed that the Guidance stated, “Where a defendant company's turnover or equivalent greatly exceeds the threshold for large companies, it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence."

He also stated clearly that the court is bound by, or even required to start at the ranges of fines suggested by the Guidance for organisations ‘large’.

In the case of Category 1 environmental damage caused by deliberate action or inaction:

 

“….the need to impose a just and proportionate penalty will necessitate a focus on the whole of the financial circumstances of the company. We have already outlined the approach by reference to the guideline – starting with turnover, but having regard to all the financial circumstances, including profitability. In such a case, the objectives of punishment, deterrence and the removal of gain (for example by the decision of the management not to expend sufficient resources in modernisation and improvement) must be achieved by the level of penalty imposed. This may well result in a fine equal to a substantial percentage, up to 100%, of the company's pre-tax net profit for the year in question (or an average if there is more than one year involved), even if this results in fines in excess of £100 million. Fines of such magnitude are imposed in the financial services market for breach of regulations. In a Category 1 harm case, the imposition of such a fine is a necessary and proper consequence of the importance to be attached to environmental protection.”

 

The Court stated that similar considerations should be applied to Category 1 offences which are caused by recklessness; however, the Court should recognise that recklessness is a lesser evil than deliberate action or inaction.


Admitting Fresh Evidence

Under s.23(1) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968, the Court may receive evidence not admitted in proceedings from which the appeal lies if the Court thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. The factors to which it must have regard are those set out in s.23(2),

"The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to –

(a) whether the evidence appears to the court to be capable of belief;

(b) whether it appears to the court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;

(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and

(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings."


In environmental pollution cases, it is now routine for the Crown to produce a "Friskies"  schedule of aggravating and mitigating factors (R v. Friskies Petcare (UK) Limited [2000] 2 CAR (S) 401).  This schedule should be served before any plea is entered. 

The practice was endorsed by Practice Direction: [2014] 1 WLR 3001.

Mitting J stated, “It can only be in the rarest of circumstances, far removed from the facts of this case, that this court would permit an Appellant in this type of case to advance a case on appeal which was not fully deployed below.”

This, along with the fact the Court was not convinced that any requirements of s.23(2) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968, meant the admission of fresh evidence request was denied.


What Corporations Need to Take From the Decision

There are two main points that large organisations that cause major environmental damage need to take from this recent Court of Appeal decision:

1.      The Court is not bound by any restrictions when it comes to imposing a fine on large corporations who deliberately or recklessly cause damage to the environment.  In these types of situations, the courts are interested in not only punishing the particular corporation, but deterring other businesses from damaging the environment in pursuit of profits.

2.      In these types of cases, it is very unlikely that the Court of Appeal will accept any new evidence which was not presented in the lower courts.  This puts organisations on notice that they need to be diligent in ensuring they read and act on the information contained in the Friskies’ schedule at the beginning of the litigation process as they are unlikely to receive a second chance.


To find out more about the law surrounding environmental law prosecutions, please click here, or call our London-based office on 0207 993 6960.

 

Follow our company page on linkedin for future updates and our views on the latest developments

Categories: Environmental

Please leave a comment

Enter the name you would like to appear on the comment.
(required)
Enter the email you would like to use to get updates. You email is not visible and can not be used by other users.
(required)
Enter you comment help.

 
  Post Comment

Book Launch - 27 November 2019

Will you be joining us?

HSE and Environment Agency prosecution: A new climate

27 November 2019 | Bloomsbury, 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP

Event Registration

First name
Surname
Email address
Any additional information
Post/Event URL
Post/Event Title
CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below.

Tag Cloud

‘fit for purpose’ obligations 2016 Adjudication adjudication lawyer Adjudication Notice Adjudication process appeal appointing an adjudicator Arbitration Artificial Intelligence Asbestos benefits of off-site construction bonfires book launch breach of contract Brexit Building Defects business interruption Business Interruption Insurance CDM CDM Regulations chambers and partners Charlotte Waters civil proceedings claim payments Claims client COMAH commercial contracts complex construction claims Compliance compulsory sprinklers in warehouses consequential loss construction Construction Construction & Engineering construction contract Construction contract dispute Construction contracts Construction dispute construction dispute lawyer construction dispute resolution construction dispute resolution solicitor construction dispute solicitors Construction Disputes Resolution Construction industry Construction Magazine contracts Contribution claim Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Responsibility costs criminal investigation criminal proceedings cut out fuse Defective Building Work Defective Premises Act developer developers disadvantages of off-site construction Disaster disaster claim Disasters Dispute dispute resolution Disputes DPA Dr Louise Smail Emergency response Emergency Response Solicitors enforcement notices Engineering Engineering dispute Environment Agency environment law Environmental Environmental Agency Environmental damage Environmental Law environmental waste EU EU Procurement Europe Evidence Expert evidence expert witness falls from height Fatal Accidents fee for intervention Fees For Intervention FFI FIDIC Contracts fine Fines Fire Fire Claim fire claims fire damage fire damage lawyers fire sprinkler systems fireworks flood flood claim flood damage food hygiene Fracking fracking claims Fraudulent claims FSW Gross Negligence Manslaughter Guide to Adjudication H&S fine increases; health and safety fines; Health & Safety health & safety breach health & safety sentences health & safety sentencing guidelines health & safety sentencing large corporations health and safety health and safety Health and Safety Executive heave Higher Fines Honey Rose v R How to appoint an adjudicator HSE Insolvency insolvent insurance Insurance Act 2015 insurance bill Insurance Broker insurance claim insurance cover Insurance Disclosure Insurance Disclosure insurance dispute insurance dispute solicitors Insurance Warranties ISO 45001 join us joint venture Judicial Review latest news Law Lawyer legal 500 legal advice privilege Legal Expense Insurance legal professional privilege legal retainers Liability Liquidated Damages Litigation litigation privilege local bodies magistrates’ courts Major Property Damage Manufacturing Martinisation material breach Mediation Michael Appleby Micheal appleby modern methods of construction (MMC) modular construction Mr. Gutaj Notice of adjudication panel firms party wall Performance Bond planning powers of an adjudicator pre-fabrication procurement procurement injunction procurement model Property Damage property danage Public Contract Public Contracts Public Contracts Regulations public procurement public procurement challenges public procurement relationship public sector Publicity Order PUWER recruitment regulation 11 Relief Resolution riot Riot Compensation Act 2016 Risk Risk Assessment safety in the workplace Sanctions Self-build sentence sentencing sentencing guidelines Serious Fraud Office SME Sneller Sony specialist risk and safety consultant Statute Barred Sub-Contractors subrogation subsidance subsidence TCC TCC Guidance team Technology and Construction Court The Adjudicator’s Decision and Costs The Enterprise Act The Lord Young Reforms The Powers Of An Adjudicator The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 The referral notice and response Training tree root UK Underwriters Warehouse insurance Warranties waste water damage WEEE What is Adjudication? what should an adjudication refal notice contain work equipment

Search The Site

Accreditations

 

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms


Contact Us Now For Advice And Guidance

Enter your name
Enter your surname
Enter your Email
Ask us a Question?