Combatting waste crime

United Kingdom

• The 2018 case of the English Environment Agency (EA) v Jason Newman, Sidney Simpson and Daniel Worboys concerned deliberate and repeated fly-tipping on private property. Some 40 different deposits of waste had been spread across the field, including electrical items that had leaked into the nearby watercourse. The cost of clearing the field, which contained 100 tonnes of waste, was nearly £100,000.
  The investigations focused on four defendants but the waste found at the site was associated with numerous individuals and companies.
  The defendants pleaded guilty and confessed that they had deposed the waste at the site and the related breaches of due diligence.
  In sentencing, the court confirmed that the crime was intentional and that the defendants were motivated by financial gain. They were sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment on probation for 12 months and to pay compensations between £1,000 and £1,500 to the landowner.
• In English Environment Agency v Biffa Waste Services Limited the EA intercepted 7 containers of waste destined for China (approx. 175 tonnes) at Felixstowe. The containers were loaded at Biffa's sites, the second largest recycling company in the UK, with the transport documents describing the waste as "mixed waste paper" collected from "households" that can legally be exported to China for recycling. The company stated that it had exported homogeneous waste throughout 2015; its plant was operating at the optimum level and producing waste to the required standard.
  In contrast, EA officials testified the type and amount of pollutants, including dirty diapers/hygiene products, human hair, food, hot water bottles, large items of clothing, toys, electrical cables and other pollutants well beyond the permitted minimal level. Shipping heavily contaminated waste to China, however, has been illegal since 2006 because the country is not part of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
  The officials who inspected the containers also registered foul odours, flies and condensation, with some of the officials having to leave the area under investigation because of the smell.
  The trial took place in 2019, at which the jury concluded that the waste was household waste the export of which to China is illegal (and any other non-OECD countries). The court imposed a fine for the seven containers totaling £599,912.
• Operation By-product was a large-scale investigation against the defendants C and S for the unlawful disposal of waste at various locations and on various occasions in England.
  In September 2015, the EA became aware of illegal deposits of waste at a disused warehouse. A directed surveillance operation identified the vehicles of S at the site on multiple occasions depositing waste.
  Subsequently, in November 2015, C, the mastermind, but not a formal director, behind Aurigo Recycling Ltd, instructed the company's truck drivers to transport mixed shredded waste to the same warehouse. It cost the landlord over £100,000 to dispose of the 658 tonnes of waste illegally deposited in the warehouse.
  Finally, in August 2016 a T4 waste exemption (which applies to un-mixed waste only) was registered at an empty factory warehouse. The exemption was registered in the name of a company, whose sole director was the defendant C. Over the next 4 months the company was paid to accept approximately 400 tones of mixed shredded paper and plastic waste, which is not allowed under the exemption.
  When EA officials appeared unannounced at the site, they observed large piles of waste that were self-heating and likely to pollute the environment or endanger human health. The fire and rescue services were called, who strongly advised the defendant to deal with the imminent fire risk.
  The court found that the crimes were intentional and that the amount of mixed paper and plastic waste was sufficient to create a fire hazard. In 2018 C was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment and a director’s disqualification order for 5 years, while S was sentenced to a 12 months community order and pay £500 compensation.
• In Environment Agency v John Bruce, the defendant managed a waste disposal company without an environmental permit. He brought waste to the site from various locations, deposited, burned and buried it. For several weeks there were continuous fires on the site, which severely affected the quality of life of the local residents. The defendant also ignored the interventions of the Environment Agency and the fire and rescue services, the complaints of local residents and the legal requirements for waste disposal and treatment.
  Analysis of the samples collected confirmed that some of the waste deposited on the site was hazardous because it contained aluminum dross. The defendant made a profit of several hundred thousand pounds through his illegal waste disposal.
  The judge ruled that the defendant was aware of the hazardous nature of the waste, even though the risk was reduced due to the waste being buried. The judge stressed the need for a deterrent sentence and noted that it is not usual for a person to receive such a long prison sentence (26 months) for environmental offences. However, aggravating factors such as the defendant's criminal record, a history of failure to comply with warnings from the authorities, the clear impact on the local community and the fact that the offences were committed over a long period of time, made a lengthy sentence inevitable.