Sentencing Updates for October 2026

was subsequently discharged from three coastal pumping stations. The defendant pleaded guilty to five offences under Regulation 38(2) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 for breaches of environmental permit conditions. The offences relate to discharges from pumping stations. The Environment Agency classified the incident as Category 1. The defendant accepted this classification.

The defendant water company’s conduct was found to repeatedly have amounted to reckless failures in management systems and response to known risks. It pleaded guilty to 18 charges, 17 for illegal water discharge activities and one charge for failing to take reasonable remedial measures following failure at a pumping station. The offences took place over six years. 

On one occasion, “untreated sewage gushed through the harbour wall on a bank holiday weekend”. Despite alarms firing, the defendant took 10 hours to attend the incident. Across multiple sites, the defendant failed to put in place and enforce systems of environmental management as could be reasonably expected. On 231 occasions, untreated sewage was discharged onto a beach, a location popular with locals and tourists. At one of the defendant’s sewage works, there were 336 illegal spills in seven years.  

In another case, it failed to provide a permanent fix for a combined sewer that entered a small stream, despite multiple formal warnings from the Environment Agency over several years. This led to two pollution incidents. The judge found the defendant knew the pipe was precarious and yet did nothing about it for years until it collapsed in 2020 and “raw sewage spilled into the watercourse”.  

Despite pleading guilty, the judge found the defendant, instead of being remorseful and accepting full responsibility for acts, has tried to minimise its role in the offending.  

The defendant construction company has been fined after a large number of bats were killed as a result of building work at a sheltered housing bungalow. The property’s tenant was admitted to hospital with bite wounds after more than 150 bats flew into his living quarters and bedroom from the house’s roof structure in which they had been trapped. When ecology experts examined the property they identified the animals as Soprano Pipistrelle bats which are protected under European law. Evidence presented by prosecutors showed around half of the 300 bats in the colony had died of dehydration and starvation. This came after work to install solar panels and external cladding blocked off the entrance to the bat roost within the roof of the building.  

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching animal conservation laws.

The defendant skip company was charged with four offences: 

- operating a waste facility, without an environmental permit x2, both contrary to regulations 12 and 38 (1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016; 

- failing to comply with a notice requiring the defendant to remove controlled waste from the site, contrary to sections 59ZB(2) and 59ZB(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; 

- keeping controlled waste at the site in a manner likely to cause environmental pollution or harm to human health, contrary to section 33(1)(c) contrary to section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

The yard in question was full of wood, metal, textiles and builders’ rubbish. Hardly any space was left, causing a fire-risk, and a lot of waste was just stored on the ground.  

The defendant waste company pleaded guilty to three charges for failing to comply with environmental permit regulations and formal notices to stop waste operations. The defendant occupied the land and initially operated under registered waste exemptions. However, EA inspections identified that the defendant was not complying with the conditions of those exemptions and they were de-registered. Despite this, waste operations continued without the required environmental permit. Site visits by EA officers revealed that the site had accepted further waste. The defendant was ordered to stop but waste volume continued to increase. 

Charges: 

The defendant failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice pursuant to section 59(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in that it failed to remove controlled waste from land contrary to section 59(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

The defendant failed, without reasonable excuse, to furnish to the EA with information required by a notice in writing pursuant to section 71(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, contrary to section 71(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

The defendant did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the deposit, treatment, and storage of waste, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12(1)(a) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 

The defendant water company caused multiple incidents of sewage pollution. The defendant was charged with releasing untreated sewage, sewage debris, diesel and waste matter into the sea and a brook across a two year period. This included two incidents happening at the same time in different locations. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to all five charges under Regulations 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 

Repeated illegal sewage pollution incidents by the defendant water company forced the closure of beaches, harmed coastal communities. Serious failures were exposed in the defendant’s management of wastewater. Preventable equipment failures and poor operational oversight led to repeated discharges of untreated sewage between 2019 and 2021, some at the height of summer. 

Across five major pollution incidents, the defendant repeatedly failed to maintain critical pumping equipment, delayed reporting pollution to regulators and allowed untreated sewage to enter coastal waters.  

The Environment Agency charged the defendant with 13 offences, all contrary to regulations 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 

The defendant’s restaurant served ‘dairy-free’ cappuccinos containing milk to County Council officers. Subsequent analysis showed that the drink contained milk proteins at a high enough level that they could cause an allergic reaction.  

The defendant was then told of this failure, putting measures in place to help protect its customers from issues like this, including a new policy; not offering allergen-free products to customers, with staff being trained and signing a form which said that they had been made aware. 

Officers later returned to take a further sample of the same product, with staff being told that the buyer was allergic to milk, and wanting to know if there were dairy-free products available. This was again to contain milk proteins, of an even higher level than the earlier sample. 

It was then that officers asked to see food safety management paperwork, with a matrix sheet for baked goods shown, and others later supplied via email. The member of staff who supplied the most recent drink had not signed to say that they were aware of the allergen policy. 

Environmental Health officers first identified poor standards at the defendant takeaway during a routine inspection and conducted a further seven visits over the following months. Despite receiving food safety training, translated guidance and repeated advice, standards continued to deteriorate. 

A total of nine Improvement Notices were served. Food and surface testing repeatedly produced poor results, revealing the presence of potentially harmful bacteria. Environmental Health officers also intervened to secure two voluntary closures, one in April 2024, due to pest infestation and the other in December 2024, for lack of hot water, preventing good personal hygiene and effective cleaning. 

The defendant, its director, and its manager pleaded guilty to 27 food safety and hygiene offences. 

Environmental health officers uncovered a severe and pervasive mouse infestation at the defendant’s takeaway. The investigation was not triggered by a routine check, but by an urgent alert from police, whose officers had noticed alarming hygiene issues at the premises and escalated the matter to council authorities. When environmental health inspectors arrived, the scale of the gross negligence became immediately apparent. 144 photographs presented as evidence documented mouse droppings scattered extensively throughout the food preparation areas. Most alarmingly, faecal matter was discovered in close proximity to raw ingredients, including uncovered prawns, creating a direct vector for severe bacterial contamination, including salmonella and hantavirus. 

The inspection revealed that the infestation was facilitated by severe structural neglect. Officers discovered large, unsealed gaps in the property's walls, essentially serving as open entry points for urban rodents. In the basement, a leaking drainpipe contributed to unsanitary pooling water, creating an ideal breeding ground for pests. Furthermore, the inspectors documented heavily soiled cooking equipment. Woks, fryers, and utensils were found coated in grease and grime, while wooden chopping boards were deeply scored and unclean, providing perfect crevices for dangerous bacteria to multiply. 

The defendant failed to attend the court hearing.

The defendant supermarket failed to comply with Food Standards Improvement Notices. Pre-packed food was offered for sale in the shop with missing information including the lists of ingredients, nutrition details and allergen information in English, and the name and address of the UK food business operator or importer on the packaging, contrary to improvement notices served to bring products into compliance. 

The defendant admitted breaches of the Food Safety Act 1990 and pleaded guilty to all charges. 

The defendant cake manufacturing business pleaded guilty to six food hygiene offences after council environmental health officers uncovered serious failings during an inspection. 

The defendant breached requirements to keep its food premises clean, to have pest control procedures in place, maintain repair and condition, and to ensure utensils and equipment were clean. Food chillers were found to be in poor maintenance, sink taps were dirty and rusty, food spillages on floors, mould, damp, and condensation on the ceiling and structural damage to the building. Mouse droppings were found throughout the premises including the food production area, food storage area, and staff kitchen. Droppings were also seen on shelving and on the floor posing the risk of contamination from pests, along with open bags of food and ingredients stored in dirty containers. Due to the imminent risk to and danger to public health, the defendant accepted the recommendation from environmental health officers to voluntarily close immediately, as the premises was an imminent risk to health due to mice droppings and poor cleaning and maintenance. 

The offences committed by the defendant were in contrary to Regulation 19(1) and (2) of the Food Safety & Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. 

A boundary wall beside a car park at a railway station collapsed onto an 81-year-old pedestrian, who was using the adjacent alleyway. He suffered several fractured ribs, a punctured lung and a blood clot in his lung, and spent two weeks in hospital.  

The defendant rail company owned the wall and remained responsible for its repair and maintenance. However, undocumented redevelopment of the station car park by a previous tenant, including the installation of a fence in front of the wall, led to the mistaken assumption that the fence marked the station boundary. The wall was consequently omitted from the defendant’s inspections and it failed to identify either the discrepancy in the boundary records or the wall's deteriorating condition. These failings meant the risk the wall posed to members of the public went unidentified. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to a single breach of section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 

An employee and his colleague suffered scald injuries when they were carrying out maintenance work on steam pipework in the defendant food manufacturer’s factory. The men were working to replace a leaking gasket in an isolation valve on steam pipework in the boiler room of the factory. They were undertaking the work from a gantry above the boiler. The gantry didn’t provide access to the specific part of the pipework they were working on, and so both men had to step off the gantry and work on top of the boiler. When they removed the gasket, they were both splashed with hot water from the pipework, suffering scald injuries. One of the men suffered 4-5% subdermal burns, and the other suffered 9% subdermal, second-degree burns. 

The defendant had failed to risk assess the task and failed to document a safe system of work for the work being undertaken. The investigation found that suitable isolation and lock-off procedures were not used at the time of the incident, and that the work was undertaken at height without sufficient measures in place to prevent a fall from height. There was a lack of adequate supervision and monitoring procedures in place to ensure that expected processes were followed. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.  

Workers at the defendant food manufacturer were at risk after HSE found the levels of inhalable dust at its factory could cause illnesses such as occupational asthma. A HSE inspection carried out identified a number of unsafe practices, including dust escaping from machinery due to leaks, the use of compressed airlines to blow down dust deposits and dry sweeping using brushes and brooms. A workplace dust monitoring report confirmed that employees were exposed to inhalable dust concentrations above the workplace exposure limits set by HSE during the testing undertaken. The investigation also found that workers were required to manually lift 25kg sacks of ingredients on a daily basis. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 

A warehouse supervisor suffered fatal injuries following a fall from a mobile loading ramp during a container loading operation at the defendant transport company’s site. As he accessed the ramp, a plastic bale slipped from the forklift truck which was loading them into the container. This caused the man to step backwards and fall approximately 1.5 metres onto the concrete surface below. He suffered serious injuries and died in hospital.

The defendant failed to properly assess the risks associated with the loading operation and failed to adequately consider and control the risks arising from pedestrian use of mobile loading ramps. Employees were permitted to access the ramps without handrails. In spite of the fact that the manufacturer of the ramp had specifically advised that pedestrians should not use the ramp unless handrails were fitted. The defendant had also not sufficiently considered reasonably practicable alternatives that would have avoided work at height altogether, including using existing loading bays or placing containers on the ground before loading. 

It was found guilty of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Regulation 6(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

A child died at the defendant’s hotel after suffering an electric shock in the lobby. The local council brought charges against the defendant for offences contrary to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, though none of the charges related to the death of the child. Inspectors found that while the defendant had undertaken electrical inspections as required by law, essential remedial works to correct dangerous electrical installations were not undertaken by a competent, qualified electrician, nor were any works documented or certified. An electrical installation condition report (EICR) from 2020 had documented issues of concern that posed a danger to guests and employees of the hotel. While inspectors could see that remedial works had been undertaken for one of the urgent dangers, no documents or certificates could be produced to clarify when or by whom the works were completed. Additionally, there was no documentation in place to evidence that any of the immediate works had been carried out by a competent, qualified electrician. 

The council then liaised with the HSE, which sent in two specialist inspectors to further assess the electrical installation. They found three more, separate dangerous areas within the hotel. Their report concluded that the electrical installation was not maintained in a satisfactory condition, putting employees and guests at risk of fatal injuries.

The defendant waste and recycling company repeatedly failed to provide appropriate welfare facilities and asbestos awareness training for employees. Workers were tasked with sorting waste and recyclable materials by hand without having facilities to wash dry themselves afterwards. It was identified through a routine inspection that the defendant had failed to make warm running water and soap available to employees as well as a means to dry themselves. There had been at least one occasion where asbestos had been brought onto the site, yet the defendant continued to not provide asbestos awareness training to employees.

The defendant had received previous enforcement on several occasions over an 11–year period. On each occasion, inspectors found the defendant failed to maintain the minimum health and safety standards required. These enforcement notices were in relation to welfare provisions and training. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

A bricklayer was hospitalised for a month when the floor he was working on collapsed. He was bricklaying on the upper level of a house and fell along with multiple concrete blocks that had been stored on the upper floor. He sustained fractures to his right leg, hip and left hand, requiring surgery and a month-long stay in hospital. 

The defendant construction company, as the principal contractor, had failed to properly plan, manage and monitor the construction work on site. The floor that collapsed had been overloaded with concrete blocks and had not been constructed in accordance with the manufacturer’s design. There were also a number of other health and safety failings at the site, including unsafe scaffolding, inadequate arrangements for work at height, a lack of fire alarms and inadequate competent site management. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 13(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.