APPENDIX 7
Memorandum from Leeds City Council
Leeds City Council welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to the Sub Committee on Environmental Crime
as the quality of the local environment is of increasing concern
to both the Council and the people of Leeds.
The Council is currently undertaking a review
of its primary environmental enforcement activities and has identified
a number of concerns. Wherever possible, I have sought to direct
our response to the questions specified by you but there are a
number of general points that I would like to make first.
THE MAIN
ISSUES FROM
THE COUNCIL'S
PERSPECTIVE
Leeds City Council regards environmental crime
as a very serious issue with high environmental, social and economic
costs to the city, its residents and businesses.
Local residents consider that nuisances such
as abandoned vehicles, litter, fly-posting, fly-tipping and noise
seriously impair their quality of life and feeling of safety.
The Council has yet to assess the direct costs to the Council
of dealing with, and trying to prevent, environmental crime but
believes them to be substantial. It would be very difficult to
assess all the hidden costs to the city.
The city council only prosecutes serious offenders
once all other avenues have failed. Elected Members have expressed
concern over the levels of fines imposed and compensation awarded
by the Magistrates Courts: sentences often appear to ignore the
"Polluter Pays" principle and do not act as a sufficient
deterrent. Indeed, the levels of fines only act as a deterrent
to officers as many feel there is little to be gained from prosecuting
offenders given the large amount of time, effort and cost involved
in bringing a successful prosecution.
Officers are in dialogue with clerks at Leeds
Magistrates Courts to see if training can be given to Magistrates
and clerks to increase their awareness of the seriousness of the
offences brought to them and of the need to impose fines that
will deter further offences. However, the Magistrates' Court has
emphasised the high demands already placed on Magistrates time
and have indicated that any training could only be given as part
of a training event which covered a much wider range of issues.
Would it be possible to have specific specialist environmental
courts, so a smaller group of magistrates could gain more experience
in hearing cases of environmental crime?
The Council accepts it has a role to play in
raising awareness amongst the general public of the social and
economic costs of environmental crime such as increased health
risks, costs of clean up, reduced feelings of safety etc.
With respect to the specific question posed
we would comment as follows:
1. Are the scale and nature of sentences
for environmental crimes commensurate with the seriousness of
the crimes themselves?
Given that fines of up to £20,000 can be
set by Magistrates Courts and unlimited fines by the Crown Court
and that legislation often provides for maximum sentences to be
up to four times higher than standard sentencing levels, it is
felt that the sentencing powers available for environmental crimes
are commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes themselves.
2. Are sentences appropriately set to act
as a deterrent?
If sentencing guidelines were followed then
sentences could be a useful deterrent, however it is often cheaper
for offenders to commit crimes and be fined than comply with the
law. The levels of fines are normally set at the very lowest level
of the range available and do not act as a deterrent.
In addition, while most lay people would agree
that fines should be set in accordance with individual's or businesses'
income, it is difficult to understand why magistrates courts do
not require proof of offenders' income when setting fines, compensation
and costs and, if proof is not forthcoming, simply set them at
the maximum level available.
3. Is environmental sentencing sufficiently
flexible to ensure that offenders, whatever their means, are punished
appropriately?
Given the upper limit of fines and the community
and custodial sentences available to the court, sentencing does
appear to be sufficiently flexible. The council would often prefer
offenders to be given community sentences to help clear up the
damage they and other offenders have caused than be given small
fines.
4. Is the guidance currently available to
magistrates' and other courts appropriate and sufficient to ensure
that sentences for environmental crimes are set at a level which
properly reflects the damage caused by the crimes and the need
to deter future crimes?
The Guidance for sentencers by the Magistrates'
Association, "Costing the Earth", is good, whether Magistrates
are generally aware of its existence and applying it is another
matter.
5. Are magistrates' and other courts following
any guidance available?
How aware most magistrates are of the above
guidance is arguable. Recent cases in Leeds would suggest they
are either unaware or simply not following it.
6. To what extent are courts sentencing on
the basis of broad environmental principles, including the principle
of sustainable development?
Our experience would suggest that the courts
are not sentencing on the basis of these principles.
January 2004
| 
