Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
are concerned that the general level at which fines are imposed
neither reflects the gravity of environmental crimes, nor deters
or punishes adequately those who commit them. This is clearly
unsatisfactory. (Paragraph 16)
2. For many forms
of environmental crime, compulsory remediation work on the sort
of blight for which the offender was himself responsible would
be a more appropriate sentence than a fine. (Paragraph 17)
3. We consider it
unfortunate that community sentences have for so long been tied
inflexibly to custodial sentences. This has markedly reduced the
ability of courts to pass appropriate sentences for environmental
offences. (Paragraph 17)
4. It is clear that,
given the current paltry range of sentences available, there is
simply insufficient scope to properly tailor sentences to offenders.
(Paragraph 18)
5. It appears to us
that the profits made from crimes form too little a part in decisions
as to the size of fine or sentence to be given. Courts—and
prosecutors—need to bear in mind that unless the polluter
pays substantially more than the sum he profits by from his crime
there will be no real deterrent or punishment value to the sentence
given. (Paragraph 21)
6. Both the low level
of payment of fines and their indiscriminate destination are unsatisfactory.
It is evidently far too easy to avoid payment: and even were 100%
of fines to be paid, it would be of no benefit to those leading
the fight against these crimes. This is hardly a just situation.
(Paragraph 22)
7. We believe that
there may be grounds for establishing guidance that crimes against
the environment merit an automatic aggravation before the court—in
other words, that one of the aggravating factors included as guidance
for magistrates or judges is damage to the environment or threat
to local sustainability. (Paragraph 24)
8. the current sentencing
system is just not flexible and imaginative enough adequately
to punish corporate bodies or those in senior managerial positions
within them. It is disgraceful that some companies openly boast
about their crimes as though they manifested some sort of commercial
talent or marketing genius. The Government must adopt a much tougher
stance with businesses—regardless of their size and nationality—which
flagrantly flout the law. (Paragraph 26)
9. It is also noteworthy
that sections 43-7 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 have
recently come into force which assist prosecutors and sentencers
in dealing more flexibly—thus effectively—with local
environmental crime, particularly graffiti and fly-posting. This
is very much to be welcomed. (Paragraph 27)
10. Investigating
and prosecuting bodies must be congratulated for continuing to
bring cases before courts when the chances of a satisfactory outcome
realistically appear so slight. (Paragraph 28)
11. Preventing the
common-or-garden fly-tipper, "the man with the white van",
from owning or driving a van is more useful than fining him a
negligible amount which he will more than make up with his next
"job". (Paragraph 30)
12. We expect DEFRA
to move on from its welcome consultations over fly-tipping to
consider wider and more detailed changes that will assist the
Agency and local authorities in particular in ensuring that those
they detect and prosecute successfully will receive sentences
that are robust and appropriate to the crimes committed and to
the type of offenders involved. (Paragraph 32)
13. We acknowledge
that there may be little scope for increasing the custodial maxima,
but expect the Government to look into the limits on traditional
sentencing across the range of environmental crimes to see where
benefit may accrue from appropriate increases. (Paragraph 33)
14. The Government
should seek to assist the JSB to commit judicial training to environmental
impacts and the principles of sustainable development. Government
has a duty to encourage all engaged bodies to assist in tackling
environmental crime as seriously as other crimes which blight
lives: it would be wrong for government to consider this duty
as one which does not extend to the judiciary. (Paragraph 36)
15. Information is
key to fighting crime, and all those dealing with environmental
offences, whether they be sentencers, prosecutors, investigators,
or those dealing with clean-up or with prevention, require a good
corpus of information on which to build effective strategies.
We look to the Government, in co-operation with other engaged
bodies, to examine practical means to set up a comprehensive database
of environmental crime to improve information in this area. (Paragraph
38)
16. We expect the
Government to ensure that those agencies who handle community
sentences are sufficiently resourced to cope with what we hope
will be an increasing number of such sentences. (Paragraph 39)
17. We call on the
Home Office and the Agency to look again at these proposals to
deal more effectively with corporate or business environmental
crime; and to ensure that such proposals are quickly cast in a
legislative shape upon which Parliament can then come to a decision.
(Paragraph 41)
18. Clearly, DEFRA
should look at the possibilities of granting to environmental
bodies a power similar to that the HSE possesses in the form of
the issuing of prohibition notices. (Paragraph 42)
19. If the Government
believes that extending those powers to impose fixed penalty notices
currently available in most places only to police officers or
their equivalent to agents of the Agency or local authorities
is a good idea and will assist in tackling environmental crime
then it ought to do something about it. Government inaction in
the first instance led to the private legislation the precedent
of which the Government now cites as reason now not to act. (Paragraph
43)
20. The Government
and other appropriate bodies must look seriously at the proposals
for such specialist training on environmental crime and for the
establishment of teams of dedicated magistrates. It is clear that
without such concentrated experience and expertise the courts
will continue to be a lottery often unfavourable to deterrence
and proper punishment. (Paragraph 45)
21. The Government
has shown itself to be sufficiently joined-up to begin to tackle
anti-social behaviour. It now needs to ensure that it works in
a co-ordinated fashion, and with other bodies, to tackle the currently
poor sentencing record for offences against the environment. Only
by doing so will it effectively begin to deal with the blight
that is environmental crime. (Paragraph 46)
| 
