Sentencing Updates for October 2025

The defendant water company broke conditions of an environment permit at a sewage treatment works seven times in a five-month period. It exceeded permitted levels of sewage effluent. 

The charge:

Failing to comply with, or contravening, an environmental permit condition, contrary to Regulation 38(2) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 

The particulars of the offence are as follows: The defendant failed to comply with, or contravened, an environmental permit condition, namely Condition 3.1.2 and Schedule 3 to Discharge Consent AH1000401, by exceeding the permitted level of 18 milligrams per litre of ammonia in the discharge from the said works to the brook, on seven occasions within the said period.

The defendant waste company had been found guilty of failing to comply with duty of care regulations for controlled waste. Intelligence gathered, revealed lorry-loads of shredded waste were regularly being accepted onto the site the size of a football pitch. It was calculated that the defendant, over a period of six months, organised the transport of over 1,400 tonnes of controlled waste. 

Particulars of offence:

The defendant acting as a waste broker, had control of controlled waste and failed to take all such measures applicable to it, as are reasonable in the circumstances, to prevent a contravention by any other person of Regulation 12 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016, contrary to section 34(1)(a)(a) and 34(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

£17,000

The defendant slaughterhouse was found guilty of illegally polluting a nearby watercourse with blood. Investigations confirmed the pollution was not caused by a water company’s sewer infrastructure but instead originated from a private drainage system. Evidence gathered showed effluent, including blood, entering the watercourse from a pipe connected to the defendant’s premises. Water quality testing demonstrated that upstream of the discharge the water was of the highest quality, while downstream it was classified as ‘bad’, the lowest possible category, posing a serious risk to aquatic life. 

The court heard the defendant had a history of poor practice and non-compliance. In sentencing, the court found the defendant had acted deliberately.

£10,000

The defendant was convicted of operating a waste site without the required environmental permits. It was also charged with falsifying documents connected to hazardous waste disposal.

The charge:

The defendant operated a regulated waste facility without the required environmental permit. It submitted multiple falsified Hazardous Waste Consignment Notes, misrepresenting producers or consignees.

The defendant supermarket sold dozens of out of date items at two of its stores. Trading standards officers found 115 items, including some that were more than two weeks out of date. At one store officers found 36 out of date items, including five tubs of spicy mayo dip seven days out of date. At another store there were 25 outdated items. Another visit to the store a month later found 48 items, including some that were 12 days out of date. A second visit to the first store found a further six out of date items. 

The defendant has since implemented a new system to address the issue, saying food with a short shelf-life should now be checked daily, while longer life food is checked twice a week.

£1.5 million

A man died at the defendant manufacturer’s steelworks plant after being crushed by a piece of machinery. Maintenance work to replace a lift cylinder on a large conveyor system had been completed earlier that day, and the system was in the process of being put back into service when a hydraulic leak was found. Although power was isolated to part of the system, other sections remained live. As staff worked on the lower level to fix the leak, the deceased returned to the floor above and climbed into the conveyor system. His presence triggered sensors that activated a moving beam in a live section, fatally injuring him. He was sadly pronounced dead at the scene. 

The defendant failed to ensure the conveyor system was properly isolated and guarded. It did not take sufficient steps to manage the safety of the ongoing work. The defendant failed to ensure the work to replace the lift cylinder was done safely. It pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The branch supervisor at the defendant retailer went to the storeroom to retrieve stock. She was using a stepladder to access the stock stored on a high shelf. While doing this she fell from the stepladder. A colleague heard a thud and saw the woman lying on the floor, with her head leaning against a plastic box. She suffered fractured ribs, a fractured right elbow and a head injury resulting in swelling. She subsequently underwent surgery on her elbow which required a plate insertion. 

A safety check of the stepladder found that the right-hand side of each of the rungs had severely worn treads, which were smooth over large areas, resulting in no grip on these parts of the treads. The defendant had failed to ensure this piece of work equipment was maintained in effective working order and in good repair. The stepladder had been in use for over 28 years. It is not known when it became defective. The defendant pleaded guilty to contravening the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Regulation 5(1) and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 33(1)(c).

A member of the defendant airport’s ground handling team, died when a corroded guardrail gave way and he fell to the tarmac below. The man was preparing to unload cargo from an aircraft using a pallet loader. He had positioned the loader and was repositioning a guardrail when it suddenly gave way causing him to fall about 10 feet. One of the guardrail posts had completely fractured. There were visible signs of significant corrosion, discolouration and flaking white paint around the area. Metallurgical examination of the guardrail posts found differences in chemical composition, manufacturing, and wall thickness which indicated the posts were manufactured from two different tubing sections. These welded sections were not a feature of the manufacturer’s original design and appear to have been modified while the loader was under the ownership of the defendant. The welds on both the guardrail posts contained defects which would allow moisture in, creating a corrosive environment and speeding up deterioration. There was no record of any modification or repair to the loader guardrail involving welding and the maintenance programme in place at the time did not cover the parts of the guardrail where failure or deterioration could lead to health and safety risks. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge contrary to Regulations 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations1998 and section 33 (1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 

A member of the public was crushed by a faulty falling lift at a block of flats. When he and seven others entered the lift on the ground floor, it began to shudder and descend with the doors still open. As it began to fall, the young man attempted to exit the lift but he was crushed between the ground floor and the top of the lift. The crush injuries he sustained were so serious he eventually required a liver transplant.

The defendant property developer had been acting as the property manager. It failed to act when defects with the lift were identified by a third party, resulting in the man being injured. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant construction company put workers at risk of exposure to asbestos. Twelve square metres of asbestos insulating board (AIB) had been present in a dumb waiter lift shaft – but had already been illegally removed by unknown individuals.

The defendant failed to carry out a full asbestos survey to confirm that all asbestos-containing materials had been removed before allowing further construction work to take place. It pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(6) of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

The fire service was called to a county showground after complaints about spectators feeling unwell. It recorded high levels of carbon monoxide inside the main arena. The showground was evacuated and the indoor live action car event cancelled. The carbon monoxide readings were said to be ‘far beyond’ the safety level. Fans used by the defendant were inadequate and flags and obstacles were in the way of the carbon monoxide monitoring equipment. Seventeen people required hospital treatment for carbon monoxide poisoning. 

The defendant motorsport company was organising the event. It was charged with offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The defendant had ignored advice in an email marked ’Urgent Information’ on the eve of the event that said the arrangements for the extraction of fumes required urgent attention as the air quality was well below the acceptable levels. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to five charges for failing to: 

1. Have a valid risk assessment. 
2. Ensure the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work were adequate to deal with carbon monoxide build-up.
3. Ensure the provision and maintenance of a working environment for your employees. 
4. Prepare and revise a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work. 
5. Make a suitable as sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of persons not in your employment.

D1 - four years and eight months in prison for fraudulent trading and trading whilst bankrupt. 

D2 - 24-month suspended sentence.

The defendants falsely distributed chicken as halal meat to restaurants and takeaways. An investigation found meat was not properly traceable, sell-by dates were altered, and the chicken was not properly chilled when it was transported in dirty vans. The takeaways and restaurants believed they were dealing with a number of different companies and all believed they were buying Halal chicken. Some of the chicken had been bought in as halal meat, but correct hygiene procedures had not been followed in the "cutting room" of the warehouse. It was also used to process non-halal meat meaning that none of it could be accurately described as halal. There were long periods of time when the warehouse did not receive halal meat from wholesalers, but continued to supply chicken to restaurants and takeaways who believed it was halal. 

D1 was found guilty at trial. D2 admitted offences before trial.

12-month suspended prison sentence.

Ordered to complete 140 hours of unpaid work. 

Disqualified from acting as a company director for five years.

The defendant glazier threatened customers and delivered substandard work. He pleaded guilty to multiple offences including fraud, misleading customers, and threatening to commit criminal damage. He admitted to misusing the police’s “Secured by Design” logo to falsely suggest that his products met police-approved security standards, misleading customers into believing their homes were protected by crime-resistant windows and doors. Complaints began surfacing in summer 2021, with customers reporting long delays, poor workmanship, use of incorrect materials, and aggressive behaviour. In one case, the defendant even threatened to damage a customer’s property when they refused to pay for his substandard work.

The defendants admitted to making misleading cold calls to vulnerable consumers across the country to sell boiler repair cover. They pleaded guilty to Consumer Protection offences. There were consumer complaints to Trading Standards services, Action Fraud and British Gas about their company. Many of the victims felt the business name was deliberately used to mislead them, and imply the callers were from British Gas, when they were not. The defendants were aware at an early stage the company name was causing confusion, and that the company was misrepresenting itself, but they continued to target those aged over 65 for their personal financial benefit. The majority of consumers who were ‘sold’ boiler repair cover never received the service, and most were unaware until they saw money leave their bank accounts, that they had contracted with a company that was not their own service provider.