Law report: Thames refused ‘deposit’ relief

Thames Water Utilities v Bromley Magistrates Court and Environment Agency
Queen's Bench Division, 20 March 2013

Thames Water Utilities sought a judicial review of its conviction for depositing controlled waste on land contrary to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Environment Agency had prosecuted Thames after sewage escaped from its system onto surrounding land. It was not disputed that the sewage emanated from Thames' system.

The issue to be decided was whether the unintended escape of sewage amounted to a "deposit" on land by Thames. The district judge held that an unintended and unwanted sewage escape amounted to a "deposit". This was because the sewage that escaped had been "put, place(d) or set down" on land by Thames within the ordinary meaning of "deposit". Thames submitted that the Act referred to a deliberate act of depositing waste.

The court recognised that the meaning of "deposit" could not be considered in isolation and, when construed in the context of the Act, included unintended escapes. Statutory language that creates a criminal offence must be construed strictly. The usual and strong presumption that every offence requires a guilty mind to be present was displaced. There was no doubt that strict liability had been intended in the drafting of the first limb of the section of the Act concerned Thames' claim for Judicial Review was refused.

Comment
This is an example where legislation has created a strict liability offence that makes it unlikely a party will be able to avoid a successful prosecution. This should be borne in mind by insurers that provide an indemnity in respect of the defence of environmental prosecutions.
Kayleigh Rhodes

This article was published in the 6 June 2013 edition of Post magazine