Thames Water Utilities Ltd, R v [2015] EWCA Crim 960 (03 June 2015)

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, R v [2015] EWCA Crim 960 (03 June 2015)

The sentencing judge was entitled to find negligence based on the evidence and submissions at sentencing, including failure to replace pumps and respond to alarms; fresh evidence not admitted as it should have been deployed below; sentencing of very large organisations requires consideration of financial circumstances and seriousness, with fines sufficient to impact management and shareholders; the fine imposed was lenient but not subject to increase on appeal.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Crim 960
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Defendant: Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Pollution, Sentencing Guidelines, Corporate Liability, Admission of Fresh Evidence
Criminal Law Environmental Law Environmental Pollution Sentencing Guidelines Corporate Liability Admission of Fresh Evidence

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude negligence and require pump replacement before September 2012
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal to challenge factual findings
  3. 3 Appropriate approach to sentencing very large organisations for environmental offences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to find negligence based on the evidence and submissions at sentencing, including failure to replace pumps and respond to alarms; fresh evidence not admitted as it should have been deployed below; sentencing of very large organisations requires consideration of financial circumstances and seriousness, with fines sufficient to impact management and shareholders; the fine imposed was lenient but not subject to increase on appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • fine of £250,000 upheld
  • victim surcharge of £120 upheld