Gordon Anderson v R

Gordon Anderson v R

The sentencing judge correctly applied the Environmental Offences Guideline by including the entirety of clean-up costs due to the direct nexus between the offending and the harm. The judge did not err in resolving evidential disputes on the documentary record as agreed by the parties, nor in her treatment of the defence expert report. The judge did not impermissibly pierce the corporate veil or consider irrelevant liability issues. However, the 15-year director disqualification was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to 6 years.

Parties
Appellant: Gordon Anderson; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Environmental Permitting Offences, Director Liability, Sentencing Guidelines, Company Directors Disqualification
Criminal Law Environmental Law Company Law Environmental Permitting Offences Director Liability Sentencing Guidelines Company Directors Disqualification

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Anderson

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the Environmental Offences Guideline regarding harm and clean-up costs
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in resolving evidential disputes without a Newton hearing
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly rejected the defence expert report

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge correctly applied the Environmental Offences Guideline by including the entirety of clean-up costs due to the direct nexus between the offending and the harm. The judge did not err in resolving evidential disputes on the documentary record as agreed by the parties, nor in her treatment of the defence expert report. The judge did not impermissibly pierce the corporate veil or consider irrelevant liability issues. However, the 15-year director disqualification was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to 6 years.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Director disqualification period reduced from 15 years to 6 years
  • All other aspects of the sentence affirmed