Sentencing Updates for January 2025

The defendant water company illegally discharged sewage into a watercourse. It feeds into a Broad which is a public water supply and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Samples taken found high levels of ammonia in the polluted water. The overflow of sewage was caused by a blockage of unflushable items in the pumping well. The defendant was aware of issues with the pumping station: 10 sewage discharges have occurred since 2003, but the pumping station does not hold an emergency overflow permit.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one offence of unlawfully causing a water discharge activity contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

The defendant water company killed thousands of fish by leaking sewage. These included eels, lamprey and bullheads - three species which are threatened. It also failed to report the incidents to the EA as early as it should have done.

The discharge was caused by a mechanical failure and continued for 54.5 hours with sewage flowing through a nature conservation area. Failures of the sewage pumping station’s alarm and telemetry system, and a power cable becoming entangled in pump equipment, contributed to the failures.

The charges against the defendant:

Otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit, it caused a water discharge activity, namely discharges of storm water. It also caused the discharge of untreated sewage effluent. Contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Contravened condition 1 of an Environmental Permit in that a discharge of screened sewage was made as a result of the pumping station becoming inoperative due to mechanical and electrical breakdown when said breakdown could have been prevented. Contrary to Regulation 38(2) Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016.

£64.2 million

£4,500

The defendant construction company instructed workers to carry out land clearance which obstructed and damaged a large active badger sett. It had been made aware of the sett but it was not taken into account when instructing bulldozing work. This caused badger paths to be flattened, a tunnel to collapse and an entrance to the sett to be blocked by an excavator bucket. The defendant admitted wildlife charges contrary to the Protection of Badgers Act.

29 Oct

Defendant 1: £53.1 million

Defendant 2: Small company

Worcester Crown Court

Defendant 1: £18,000

Defendant 2: £4,000

Manufacturing

The two defendants caused trade effluent to pollute three kilometres of a brook. The 1st defendant food manufacturer and the 2nd defendant engineering company caused the deaths of hundreds of fish.

The 2nd defendant provided quarterly maintenance, and a telemetry monitoring service, for a pumping station at the 1st defendant’s premises. It was designed to pump trade effluent and sewage from the works to a foul sewer. Following completion of routine maintenance work, an employee of the 2nd defendant failed to switch the pumps within the pumping station back on. As a result, trade effluent built up in the pump well rather than being sent to the foul sewer. This caused an overflow of trade effluent from the pumping station into a containment lagoon. The lagoon filled up and then discharged the pollutant through a broken sluice gate and into a ditch running alongside the factory. This pollution discharge flowed from the ditch into the brook.

The discharge caused by the defendants was not authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) and Regulation 12(1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

£25,500 fine, required to pay remediation costs of £43,100.01

Diesel leaked from the defendant coach company’s site. The site already contained an above ground 30,000 litre diesel tank that had two metered fuel pumps connected to the tank via pipework located in a below ground conduit. The meters had not been calibrated since the defendant took on the site and no maintenance contract or records exist for this refuelling facility.

The tank and pipework pressure were tested, the results of which were presented as proof that the system was not leaking. However, it was shown that the defendant’s director had sealed around the screw-filled hole with resin prior to the testing being done. The pipework was subsequently replaced. On the pipe’s removal, it was found to be peppered with more small holes. An expert’s report suggested over 1,000 litres of diesel had escaped over time and that there had not been adequate work to remediate the contamination.

Charges against the defendant were:

Causing a groundwater discharge activity not under or to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, namely the discharge of diesel into underground strata contrary to Reg 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Causing a water discharge activity not under or to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, namely the discharge of diesel into a tributary contrary to Reg 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Failing to comply with condition 4 (3)(b)(iii) of the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 in that it failed to have adequate facilities for detecting leaks in oil storage facilities at its premises. Contrary to Regulation 9 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

The defendant farm admitted one charge of causing a polluting discharge. This was after slurry was found running down a road and into a surface water drain close to the farm. Fields were saturated in slurry and slurry entered nearby watercourses and ditches.

The defendant admitted causing unpermitted water discharge activity, namely the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into inland fresh waters. Contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

The defendant landowner company failed to clear a site of illegal waste after receiving an EA enforcement order. As the landowner it was legally obliged to clear up the waste.

It failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a notice served on it pursuant to section 59ZC(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in that it failed to remove controlled waste from land contrary to sections 59ZC(4) and 59ZB(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

An agency worker suffered serious injuries at the defendant retailer’s warehouse. He fell from steps over a conveyor belt. The small steps were without handrails, presenting a significant risk of slips, trips and falls, which was exacerbated by confined headspace. The city council served a prohibition notice on the defendant to immediately prevent the use of steps without handrails across operational conveyor belts in the warehouse.

At court the defendant submitted guilty pleas, admitting health and safety breaches under section 2, section 3 and section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 for failing to protect the health, safety and welfare of its employees. Also Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999.

An employee of the defendant drinks manufacturer sustained burns to over 30% of his body. He had been repairing a defective pump at the defendant’s distillery when he was burned by pot ale. The liquid, which had a temperature of 104 degrees Celsius, came out suddenly and unexpectedly from a pipe. The worker sustained burns to his arms, hands, shoulders, back, chest, lower legs and ankles. He spent two weeks in intensive care where he was placed in an induced coma.

The defendant failed to do all that was reasonably practicable to ensure maintenance operations could be carried out without a worker being put at risk of injury. It pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1), 2(2)(a), 2(2)(c), 33(1)(a) and 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant failed to manage the risk of legionella bacteria in the hot and cold water systems at a prison. A prisoner died after contracting Legionnaires’ disease. Water samples from his cell and nearby shower blocks tested positive for legionella days after he died.

The defendant provided facilities management services at the prison. It failed to act on a risk assessment carried out in 2016, failed to put in place a written scheme for preventing and controlling legionella risks, failed to ensure that appropriate water temperatures were maintained and failed to monitor water temperatures in the water system. This allowed legionella bacteria to multiply rapidly.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

A worker died after being crushed to death while working for the defendant construction company. He had been assisting while temporary Mast Climber Work Platform sections were being lifted by a lorry mounted crane. The load fell on top of him when the lifting sling which was attached to the crane snapped.

The defendant failed to properly plan the lifting operation of the work platform. It had failed to identify a requirement for safe exclusion zones. It also failed to have a suitable robust system in place to ensure all accessories had been thoroughly examined or disposed when expired. This resulted in out-of-date slings being used. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Staines Magistrates’ Court

The defendant school trust was fined after a five year old boy’s right hand slipped and went into the hinge side of a toilet door. There was no door guard installed. Part of his finger was amputated as a result. He later underwent surgery to reattach it.

The defendant had failed to identify the risk to its Key Stage 1 pupils while using the toilets. This meant hinge guards were not installed on the toilet doors of the building where Key Stage 2 pupils were usually taught. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

An apprentice at the defendant engineering company lost the use of two fingers when he was being taught how to weld as part of his placement. After a brief period of verbal training he was permitted to cut lengths of steel into sections using a horizontal bandsaw.

On the day of the incident he had been working unsupervised when he noticed the bandsaw was not completing a full cut due to a build-up of metal debris underneath the sawblade. As he attempted to clear away the debris, his fingers came in contact with the moving sawblade, instantly severing one finger and severely damaging another. He was taken to hospital where he remained for six days.

The defendant had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, resulting in a failure to provide suitable guarding arrangements on the bandsaw and had failed to put in place an adequate safe system of work. There was also inconsistencies and inadequacies in the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision for those required to use the bandsaw.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Inspectors conducted an unannounced inspection at the defendant cosmetics company. Electrical deficiencies that posed serious risks of both electric shock and electrocution to workers were found.

There was a systemic failure within the defendant to address the risks identified with the electrical systems. The inadequate construction and maintenance of the electrical system at the premises presented an immediate risk of employees coming into direct contact with exposed live parts on equipment and machinery. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

The defendant housebuilder was fined after a man was killed by a telehandler at a construction site. The man had been reversing the vehicle when it slid down an embankment and overturned. He died from crush injuries at the scene.

The defendant, as the principal contractor at the site, had not risk-assessed the traffic route where the incident occurred. It pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 27(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.

Thirty homes had to be evacuated after a contractor struck an underground gas main with a mechanical post knocker. He had been contracted by the defendant farm. Over two million kilogrammes of gas were released, putting 30 homes in the surrounding area at risk of fire and explosion.

The defendant was made aware of the location of the gas main and had been advised by Cadent, the asset owner, that no ground penetrating works were to be carried out in the vicinity. Despite acknowledging receipt of this information, the defendant failed to pass it on to the contractor and allowed the work to continue.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant outdoor activity company pleaded guilty to a breach of health and safety legislation after the death of a 12 year old boy on a river.

The child was separated from his board during a river boogie boarding session. He drowned after becoming trapped on the upstream side of a weir.

His activity consent form stated he was unable to swim 10 metres without the assistance of a flotation device.

When he went over the weir, all of the defendant’s instructors were below the weir. An instructor, realising something was wrong, went to the top of the weir and reached into the water where he had last seen the deceased. He found him an arm’s length underwater but the water was too powerful and prevented him from pulling the deceased out.

After around three-and-a-half minutes he eventually managed to free him. CPR was immediately performed, but the boy died in hospital the following day.

The defendant’s risk assessment for river boarding did not have adequate health and safety control measures in place. An expert’s view was that the defendant should have always had one instructor directly below and one instructor in a kayak above the weir until all the group members had successfully negotiated the rapid.

An employee of the defendant council repaired potholes and was later diagnosed with HAVS following his repeated exposure to vibration tools. Despite the worker receiving this diagnosis in April 2005, he continued to work with vibrating tools for a further 14 years.

He had been subject to regular health surveillance whilst employed by the defendant, which had included recommendations on limiting exposure. However, little action was taken to address the issues identified.

While a system of Occupational Health surveillance was in place, it was inadequate as there was either no implementation, or inconsistent implementation, of the recommendations and actions to be taken. Recommendations following health surveillance of employees wasn’t acted upon or used to identify risks.

The data used to calculate the vibration exposure grossly underestimated the vibration magnitude of the tools in use, and also relied upon accurate times being entered by staff. Workers were incentivised to continue using vibrating tools through a bonus scheme and overtime work which inevitably led to high levels of exposure. Workers were allowed to work up to the recommended Exposure Limit value (ELV), and in light of the inaccurate data inevitably worked beyond it on a regular basis. They were then only moved to other tasks when their health deteriorated.

The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for its failure to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act.

Three years in prison. Ordered to pay £7,250 compensation to each of the four victims.

18-month sentence, suspended for two years. 150 hours of unpaid work. 15 RAR days.

18-month community order. 90 hours of unpaid work.

The defendant roofers targeted elderly and vulnerable residents. They cold-called three neighbouring properties and persuaded the owners to have roofing work completed that they did not need. It consisted of cleaning and painting their roof tiles.

They also cold called a retired homeowner and said there was weed growing from her chimney, it needed to be repointed, and ridge tiles made safe. They also cleaned her roof, despite her asking them not to.

The defendants pleaded guilty to three offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Defendant 1: Six years and four months imprisonment. Handed a 10-year criminal behaviour order. Disqualified from being a director for 14 years.

Defendant 2: Two years and six months imprisonment (to run consecutively with a sentence of seven years and 11 months that he is currently serving). Handed a 10-year CBO. Disqualified from being a company director for 12 years.

Defendant 3: Two year suspended sentence. Ordered to complete 220 hours of unpaid work. Disqualified from being a director for six years.

Defendant 4: Ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work. Disqualified from being a director for three years.

Defendant 5: Failed to attend court and an arrest warrant has been issued.

Three years and nine months imprisonment.

Disqualified from being a company director for a further 10 years having already been the subject of a disqualification order.