Environment Agency v Biffa Waste Services Ltd

Condition 2.6.12 is neither invalid nor ultra vires; it does not require the court to convict solely on the honest evidence of an authorised officer. The court retains its fact-finding function and must consider all evidence. The reference to perception by an authorised officer is a safeguard for operators and does not offend principles of criminal law or legal certainty.

Parties: Appellant: Environment Agency; Respondent: Biffa Waste Services Ltd
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 12 December 2006
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Pollution Prevention and Control, Permit Conditions, Ultra Vires, Judicial Function, Odour Emissions

Environmental Law Criminal Law Pollution Prevention and Control Permit Conditions Ultra Vires Judicial Function Odour Emissions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

Environment Agency

Appellant

Biffa Waste Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / High Court Appeal From Magistrates' Court Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether condition 2.6.12 of Pollution Prevention and Control Permit BK 1988 is invalid or ultra vires due to subjectivity and usurping the court's fact-finding role
2 Whether the condition offends the principles of certainty required by criminal law and Article 7 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

District judge to proceed with hearing the informations in the Magistrates' Court
Environment Agency awarded costs of the appeal