Ezeemo & Ors v R.

Ezeemo & Ors v R.

The court held that the items were waste as defined by EU law, as they had been discarded and no sufficient process had been undertaken to change their status before export. The court further held that the offence under regulation 23 is one of strict liability, requiring no proof of knowledge or intention, and that the operations in Nigeria constituted 'recovery' under the regulations. The trial judge's directions were correct and the convictions were safe.

Parties
Appellant: Godwin Chukwnaenya Ezeemo; Appellant: Reliance Export Limited; Appellant: BJ Electronics Limited; Appellant: Chika Ezeemo; Appellant: Joseph Benson; Appellant: Orient Export Limited; Appellant: Nnamdi Chinedu Ezechukwu; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Export of Hazardous Waste, Strict Liability Offences, Interpretation of 'waste' Under EU Law, Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations, Mens Rea in Regulatory Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Law European Union Law Export of Hazardous Waste Strict Liability Offences Interpretation of 'waste' Under EU Law Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations Mens Rea in Regulatory Offences

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godwin Chukwnaenya Ezeemo

Appellant

Reliance Export Limited

Appellant

BJ Electronics Limited

Appellant

Chika Ezeemo

Appellant

Joseph Benson

Appellant

Orient Export Limited

Appellant

Nnamdi Chinedu Ezechukwu

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the electrical items were 'waste' under the relevant regulations
  2. 2 Whether the waste was 'destined for recovery' in a non-OECD country
  3. 3 Whether the offence under regulation 23 is one of strict liability

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the items were waste as defined by EU law, as they had been discarded and no sufficient process had been undertaken to change their status before export. The court further held that the offence under regulation 23 is one of strict liability, requiring no proof of knowledge or intention, and that the operations in Nigeria constituted 'recovery' under the regulations. The trial judge's directions were correct and the convictions were safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; convictions upheld