Examination of Witnesses (Questions 89-99)
29 JANUARY 2004
MS RACHEL
LIPSCOMB AND
MS ANN
FLINTHAM
Q89 Chairman: Good morning.
Thank you for your memorandum, which is one of the briefest I
have ever seen sent to any Select Committee inquiry. We are grateful
to you for coming to flesh out some of the details that perhaps
were not in what you sent to us. May I begin by asking you whether
you have a kind of in-house definition of what environmental crime
is?
Ms Lipscomb: This
is crime that has an impact on the environment and on people's
quality of life and, to a certain extent, on safety as well. Most
of the environmental crime comes to the magistrates courts in
the first place; they really are in the front line for it. What
we have been working towards is raising awareness and also improving
the relationship and the understanding between the prosecuting
agencies and the courts, because the courts are utterly dependent
on the amount of information that they have in front of them.
Because they tend to be strictly liability cases, the background,
the big picture, is of great importance when it comes to sentencing.
They may be a first time offender, so the impact of that first
sentence is crucial.
Q90 Chairman: What do
you think the main aims are of the criminal justice system in
relation to environmental crime, and also sustainable development?
Ms Lipscomb: They
are to prevent further offending. With regards to sustainable
development, by the sheer deterrent nature of the sentences, that
is to deter people either through their work or social pastimes
damaging the environment and putting at risk the future life and
enjoyment or work situation of other people.
Q91 Chairman: Do you think
that retribution has a part to play in the process as well?
Ms Lipscomb: I
think in this case it is slightly different because we put great
emphasis on the cost of compliance and the cost of clean-up rather
than retribution. The financial consequences of a fine, making
good and the maxim that the polluter pays, probably outweigh any
consideration of retribution, deterrence being of greater importance.
Q92 Chairman: Do you think,
in relation to the aims that you have just set out, that the system
is effective and working well?
Ms Flintham: It
is working better all the time and I think, as people become more
aware of the importance of the environment and perhaps irreversibility
and issues like that, things are improving.
Q93 Chairman: In what
way?
Ms Flintham: I
think because people are much more aware of the consequences of
environmental crime, they take it much more seriously. I think
there is a recognition that we do have to break the cycle, that
we have to have deterrents in place, and make sure that it is
not attractive to people to avoid from their responsibilities
towards the environment.
Q94 Chairman: When you
say that people are more aware, do you mean magistrates?
Ms Flintham: I
would say magistrates and the general public as well. It is a
wider issue but certainly the magistrates, too.
Ms Lipscomb: I
think it goes beyond just an awareness; it is an understanding
that a particular offence may have a direct impact on the environment,
it may have an indirect impact, and it could have a multiple impact.
Q95 Chairman: And yet
we have heard from the Environment Agency last week that one of
the difficulties is that people regard this as a sort of victimless
crime area, that in their view there is not a proper awareness
of the gravity or potential gravity of the sorts of crimes we
are dealing with here. You obviously take a more optimistic view?
Ms Lipscomb: We
did a lot of work with the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental
Agency, DEFRA and other interested bodies two years ago to produce
the piece of work called Costing the Earth. We believe
that has had a significant impact. We have heard back from prosecutors
that sentences appear to be higher and that the impact on the
prosecutors of good, clear reasons from the courts is actually
having a snowball effect in that it has given them a very clear
idea of what the courts have in mind and what sort of information
the courts require. Getting the background information on which
to make decisions has been the most difficult aspect of it for
us.
Q96 Chairman: Do you think
that there is a greater awareness now on the part of people who
commit these crimes that they are in fact committing criminal
offences? The Environment Agency again suggested to us that one
of the difficulties was that people did not think that they were
being criminal when they were committing various types of these
activities.
Ms Lipscomb: There
is more publicity now about the offences and the consequences.
I think for everybody working where they are possibly going to
cut corners and possibly commit offences. There is a good argument
to have a wider national campaign.
Ms Flintham: There
is a bit of difference sometimes, is there not, from your single
operator who is going fly-tipping and your criminal gangs who
are importing endangered wildlife. In terms of the criminal gangs,
there is a recognition now that there are vast amounts of money
in this; it is being compared with things like drug crimes, for
example. I think that message slowly is getting through. It may
be that perhaps the smaller operators, as I say, the fly-tippers
of this world who maybe think they can still get away with it,
is where the enforcement really needs to be and where they need
to be brought into the courts and to be dealt with. Perhaps it
is at that end where there still needs to be some change in their
culture and their attitude.
Ms Lipscomb: They
are the most difficult people to deal with. Where you have a company
and you can get accurate information as to what their turnover
is, it is much easier just to set a fine. With the small operator,
it is much more difficult. Any links that we could have with the
Benefits Agency and with the Inland Revenue would improve the
level of accurate information available, if defendants were required
to produce accounts and were aware that the BA and Inland Revenue
could be contacted then the accounts would be forthcoming.
Q97 Chairman: We will
come on to that issue later, if we may. You have made a very interesting
point there. In general terms, the impression one has, looking
at the number of prosecutions that are coming through, is that
this is a pretty small area of criminal justice. In the context
of the overall number of cases that you deal with every year,
environmental crimes are tiny, are they not? Do you think that
the number of cases you deal with is a true reflection of the
scale of the problem?
Ms Lipscomb: No.
I am sure that we do not see the smaller cases, the fly-tipping,
the other sorts of cases that verge on antisocial behaviour, that
are a nuisance and upset communities and make life unpleasant
in areas. We do not see the numbers that there are.
Ms Flintham: I
think that it is probably a problem for local authorities where
their resources are very limited.
Q98 Chairman: The problem
is a bigger one than would appear in terms of your workload?
Ms Lipscomb: Yes.
Q99 Chairman: Before we
go on to sentencing, I would like to ask about the advice of the
Sentencing Advisory Panel set up by the Court of Appeal in 2000,
which suggested that the presentation of environmental cases in
courts was generally poor. Would you have agreed with that at
the time and do you think it has changed or got any better since?
Ms Lipscomb: We
would certainly have agreed with that at the time. It is something
that we have directly worked on with prosecutors. Coming back
to what we were saying earlier about the information given to
the court, it is not necessarily the presentation of the cases
as they stand but the information when you come to the point of
sentencing that is crucial.
| 
