Thames Water Utilities Ltd, R v

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, R v

Given the extreme seriousness of the offence and the exceptional voluntary reparation, the deterrent element of the fine should be reduced to nil, but the punishment element must remain; the appropriate fine is £50,000, not £125,000.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Thames Water Utilities Ltd; Respondent: The Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; fine reduced
Legal Topics
Water Pollution, Sentencing, Corporate Liability, Strict Liability Offences
Environmental Law Criminal Law Water Pollution Sentencing Corporate Liability Strict Liability Offences

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Appellant

The Environment Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fine imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Appropriate weight to voluntary reparation in sentencing
  3. 3 Proper starting point for fine in environmental offences

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extreme seriousness of the offence and the exceptional voluntary reparation, the deterrent element of the fine should be reduced to nil, but the punishment element must remain; the appropriate fine is £50,000, not £125,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; fine reduced

Orders

  • Fine of £125,000 quashed and substituted with a fine of £50,000
  • Defendant’s Costs Order in favour of the Appellant, amount to be determined