Environmental Protection Act 1990 Offences
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (UK) – Offences
Overview of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is a key piece of UK legislation governing environmental law. It addresses the management of waste, pollution, statutory nuisances, and contaminated land, aiming to protect the environment and public health.
🔐 Key Parts of the Act Relevant to Offences
| Part | Subject |
|---|---|
| Part II | Waste on land (duty of care, illegal disposal, fly-tipping) |
| Part III | Statutory nuisances (noise, smoke, fumes, etc.) |
| Part I | Integrated pollution control and air pollution |
| Part IIA | Contaminated land (added later via Environmental Act 1995) |
⚖️ Nature of Offences
Offences under the EPA 1990 are often strict liability – meaning intent or negligence need not be proven. Common offences include:
Unlawful waste disposal
Fly-tipping
Causing or failing to prevent statutory nuisances
Failure to comply with notices
Operating without proper waste licenses
🧾 Detailed Case Law (More than 5 Cases)
1. Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
Facts:
Alphacell's factory accidentally discharged polluted matter into a river through a blocked pipe.
Held:
The House of Lords held that strict liability applied even though the company had no intention to pollute.
The discharge occurred regardless of fault.
The offence was to ensure public protection, not punish moral blame.
Significance:
Set a precedent that companies can be liable without intent, especially under environmental law.
2. Empress Car Co. (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority [1999] 2 AC 22
Facts:
Diesel oil was spilled from a storage tank after a vandal opened a tap. The company was charged under the EPA.
Held:
The company was liable under strict liability for polluting a controlled watercourse.
Even third-party acts (like vandalism) don’t always excuse liability if the risk was foreseeable.
Companies have a duty to safeguard against foreseeable risks.
Significance:
Reinforced the responsibility of businesses to prevent environmental harm, even from outside interference.
3. R v Anglian Water Services Ltd [2003] EWCA Crim 2243
Facts:
Anglian Water discharged sewage into a river due to mechanical failure, violating waste disposal regulations.
Held:
The Court of Appeal upheld conviction.
Strict liability applied, and equipment failure was no defence.
Fined over £200,000, reflecting the seriousness of environmental offences.
Significance:
Stressed that public utility companies are not exempt and must ensure systems work properly.
4. Wychavon District Council v Newman [2001] EWHC Admin 45
Facts:
A man burned waste, causing noxious smoke, and was prosecuted under statutory nuisance provisions (Part III).
Held:
The court found that the act caused a statutory nuisance, which was actionable even on a single occasion.
The local authority had a duty to act when a nuisance was reported.
Significance:
Clarified that even private individuals can be prosecuted for causing nuisance under EPA 1990.
5. R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2010] EWCA Crim 202
Facts:
Thames Water polluted a river with untreated sewage on multiple occasions.
Held:
The company was convicted and fined £204,000.
The court reaffirmed that strict liability under EPA applies regardless of measures taken.
Significance:
Confirmed that even where remedial action is taken, companies remain liable for environmental damage.
6. Doncaster MBC v Watson (2004)
Facts:
The defendant was convicted under the EPA for operating an illegal waste management site.
Held:
Operating without a proper waste license was a serious offence.
Courts emphasized environmental risk and regulatory compliance.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of proper licensing and the court's intolerance for unauthorised waste operations.
7. R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459
Though primarily a public nuisance case, it is often cited alongside EPA offences when environmental harm causes public inconvenience or danger.
⚖️ Common Penalties for Offences Under EPA 1990
Fines: Often substantial, especially for companies (£50,000+ or unlimited in Crown Court)
Imprisonment: For serious offences or repeat offenders
Remediation Orders: For clean-up or restoration
Disqualification: From holding environmental permits
Confiscation of Assets: Under Proceeds of Crime Act if profits are linked to illegal activity
🧠 Summary of Legal Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Strict Liability | Proven act is enough – intent or knowledge is often irrelevant |
| Duty of Care in Waste Management | Operators must prevent spills and illegal disposal |
| Liability for Third-Party Acts | Still liable if act was reasonably foreseeable (e.g., Empress Car Co case) |
| Responsibility of Corporates | Companies and directors can both be prosecuted |
| Statutory Nuisance | Includes noise, smoke, fumes, odour, and must be abated by the defendant |
✅ Conclusion
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 plays a central role in the UK's environmental regulatory framework. The courts interpret it strictly to ensure environmental safety, placing a high burden of responsibility on businesses, local authorities, and even individuals. Judicial decisions emphasize that ignorance, malfunction, or even third-party interference are not reliable defences when the environment is at risk.
RELATED Blog
comments