AG v Environment and Public Services [2005] JRC 020 (25 February 2005)

AG v Environment and Public Services [2005] JRC 020 (25 February 2005)

The Committee was not at fault for the initial blockage, acted promptly to remedy the situation, and there was no significant environmental harm or pollution of drinking water. However, there were minor deficiencies in the response. A lower fine is appropriate given the mitigating factors.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] JRC 020
Parties
Defendant: Committee (Department responsible for sewerage); Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
defendant fined
Legal Topics
Pollution, Sewerage, Strict Liability, Sentencing, Public Health
Environmental Law Criminal Law Pollution Sewerage Strict Liability Sentencing Public Health

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

Parties

Committee (Department responsible for sewerage)

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Liability for pollution of watercourse due to sewer blockage
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty for breach of environmental law

Ratio Decidendi

The Committee was not at fault for the initial blockage, acted promptly to remedy the situation, and there was no significant environmental harm or pollution of drinking water. However, there were minor deficiencies in the response. A lower fine is appropriate given the mitigating factors.

Court Disposition

defendant fined

Orders

  • Committee fined £5,000
  • Committee to pay £2,500 costs