Jagger, R. v

Jagger, R. v

The judge's directions to the jury were unduly restrictive and failed to provide sufficient guidance on the fact-sensitive issue of whether the material deposited by the appellant had ceased to be waste. This deprived the appellant of fair consideration by the jury, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Michael Edward Jagger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Definition of Waste, Controlled Waste, Environmental Protection Act 1990, Waste Directive, Jury Directions, Emergency Defence, Due Diligence Defence
Environmental Law Criminal Law Definition of Waste Controlled Waste Environmental Protection Act 1990 Waste Directive Jury Directions Emergency Defence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Michael Edward Jagger

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's direction to the jury on the definition of 'waste' was defective
  2. 2 Whether the material deposited by the appellant constituted controlled waste at the time of deposit
  3. 3 Whether the appellant acted with due diligence or in an emergency

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions to the jury were unduly restrictive and failed to provide sufficient guidance on the fact-sensitive issue of whether the material deposited by the appellant had ceased to be waste. This deprived the appellant of fair consideration by the jury, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • no retrial sought by prosecution