Sentencing Updates for July 2025

The defendant water company was sentenced for two offences – one of illegally polluting a dyke with sewage and another in relation to failing to maintain a pump at the pumping station. The defendant was aware the station’s backup pump had not been working for five months. It had failed to repair it, despite the issue having been noted repeatedly during regular maintenance checks. It should have been fixed within 24 hours.

Under the environmental permit for the pumping station, such a discharge is only allowed in an emergency, such as an electrical or mechanical failure or a blockage, which, if it occurs, must be remedied without delay. The backup pump was subsequently repaired following the incident.

The defendant tree services company burned waste on land. Environment Agency officers attended the site and saw a fire burning, consisting of mixed waste. Separate and away from the fire was a pile of tree trunks, a large pile of wood chippings and an even larger pile of mixed soil, rubble, wood and metal. No one was present. The defendant had no registered environmental permit or waste exemption – which allows for low level waste activity.

The Environment Agency wrote to the defendant with instructions to stop bringing in waste and burning, and to clear the site of waste within three months. It was made clear that the activity on site was illegal. Two months later the company registered a waste exemption for the site, which authorised the burning of certain categories of ‘green’ waste such as tree and plant cuttings, provided that both the waste was produced on the land and any fire does not cause a nuisance. However further fires were lit. 

Full charges: The defendant submitted controlled waste to a listed operation, namely incineration on land, otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit. Contrary to s.33(1)(b) & (6) Environmental Protection Act 1990. The defendant submitted controlled waste, or knowingly caused or knowingly permitted controlled waste to be submitted, to a listed operation namely incineration on land, otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit. Contrary to s.33(1)(b) & (6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

£20,000

Also has a confiscation order imposed of £45,000, representing the recovery of the proceeds from the crime.

The defendant wanted to purchase a site. Its director took over the control of the site and began a clearance operation. The site had no environmental permit or other authorisation to store or treat waste.

There was a lot of waste already on the site. The director agreed to move baled waste that had been stacked in a building. He also agreed to remove waste vehicles to a breakers’ site and brought heavy plant to the site for that purpose. However, rather than clearing and improving the site, he dumped the baled waste on a concrete pad. This was porous, cracked, had no sealed drainage and had an unsealed manhole cover that led to a void. He then abandoned the site leaving the baled waste exposed to the elements which inevitably caused it to degrade. 

Environment Agency officers visited the site and gave the director advice and attempted to work with him. He agreed to provide the requisite waste transfer notes that would prove lawful removal. It became clear the site had not been abandoned. 

The defendant was charged with operating a non-exempt waste operation without a permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

£200,000

Two year prison sentence suspended for 18 months.

Ordered to pay a Proceeds of Crime confiscation order of £255,057. He must pay within two months or face three years in prison.

Disqualified as a director for four years. 

Ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work.

The defendant and its director have been ordered to pay a Proceeds of Crime confiscation order. This follows an Environment Agency investigation into fraudulent entry of waste packaging data.

The defendant, orchestrated by its director, was deliberately and systematically entering false data on to the Environment Agency’s National Packaging Waste Database for non-existent waste exports. This resulted in the director receiving a benefit for himself and the defendant  in the sum of approx. £255,000.

£26,802.76 in fines and costs.

Boy was awarded £1,000 in compensation.

A mother asked one of the defendant pub chain’s pub staff if its sausages contained wheat twice. Waiting staff checked with the chefs in the kitchen and told her the recipe did not contain wheat. However, her nine year old son began to feel unwell after eating just a quarter of the sausage. Back at home, parts of his body began to swell; he had red hives all over him and had difficulty breathing. He was given steroids and adrenaline at the local hospital before being transferred to another hospital. The boy’s mother called the pub to check there was no wheat and she was told a mistake had been made and was offered a free meal. 

The defendant was charged with two offences under food safety legislation. It pleaded guilty.

A blade in a bandsaw had been left exposed and ice that had formed in a walk-in freezer left people at risk of slipping.

The butchers had also been shut down after "extensive rat activity" was found there. A member of the public had told the authority of their concerns and environmental health officers found rat droppings in "all food handling and storage areas, particularly in the butchery and basement".

The defendant admitted 12 breaches of regulations.

1st incident - £1.33 million.

2nd incident - £1.875 million.

The defendant airline was prosecuted following two separate incidents at Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport.

1^st incident – an employee had been unloading baggage containers from an aircraft when he slipped off a televator and landed 1.5 metres onto the ground below. He suffered serious back and head injuries, including a fractured vertebrae. The HSE investigation found there were gaps between the televator’s guardrails and the aircraft fuselage, the size of which depended on the type of aircraft, creating the fall from height hazard. The gaps increased in size after the front of the televators’ platforms at Terminal 5 were extended – but additional measures to prevent falls from height had not been implemented.

At the time of the incident, the defendant had started a programme to retrofit extendable guardrails to televators in response to previous HSE visits. This was completed following the incident.

2^nd incident – a worker sustained head injuries, including a fractured jaw and bleeding on the brain, while unloading baggage containers from an aircraft following its arrival. He fell from an elevator and landed three metres onto the ground below. The HSE investigation identified a risk of employees falling from height from the front of the elevator platforms when they were being used during loading and unloading of some aircraft types. Flaps on either side of the platform would be left folded down leaving a gap between the platform and aircraft fuselage. It also found the elevator’s operator platform had not been fully extended towards the aircraft, creating a gap which employees could fall through.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges under Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

The defendant defence technology company was fined after an employee was shot during testing of ammunition at a Ministry of Defence range. He was left paralysed below the shoulders after being shot by a 5.56mm bullet fired from a gun, 570 metres away. The man’s role had been to check the impact of bullets on a metal target and was in front of the target when the bullet was fired.

The defendant had failed to adequately risk assess the trial activity. As a result it did not have adequate precautions in place to ensure no one was near the target when the rounds were fired.

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

The defendant had failed to safely manage the risks of people performing maintenance at its factory. It was required to fully assess the task that the worker was assigned, to ensure that his health and safety was not put at risk. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 

The defendant had not put in place adequate management arrangements to assess and monitor the exposure of its employees to vibration. There was no suitable and sufficient risk assessment and control measures had not been implemented despite the likelihood of the exposure action value being exceeded. Employees were not informed of the risk via information, instruction or training. Additionally, despite both employees reporting symptoms of ill health for a number of years, the defendant failed to take sufficient action to reduce their exposures.

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

A radiographer was overexposed to ionising radiation whilst working for the defendant company. The defendant was notified by its approved dosimetry service that the radiographer had received a dose in excess of legal limits. The incident happened when a gamma emitting radioactive source used for radiography had not returned to its shielded container. Due to poor compliance with the defendant’s own radiation safety protocols this was not identified promptly, resulting in a radiation overexposure to the radiographer. No symptoms were reported, however excessive exposure to ionising radiation can increase the potential of developing certain cancers.

Pre-use safety checks had not been completed and recorded by the radiographer. These are key stages in confirming that radiography systems are operating correctly and ensuring the safe use of equipment. Alarming Electronic Personal Dosemeters and radiation monitors had been provided by the defendant but were not being used by the radiographer. If they had been, his alarm would have gone off highlighting the presence of radiation and allowed him to retreat to a safe location. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, Regulation 12(1) and Regulation 9(1). 

The defendant had made no checks on the gardener’s experience, competence or qualifications. It had not checked how he intended to do the work in advance of awarding the contract, made no check on the method used during the work, and did not stop the work after the incident.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching its duty under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant wood supplier failed to protect its workers from exposure to wood dust. Dust was found scattered across the floor, and the inspection identified failings in the defendant’s control measures to prevent exposure of its employees to wood dust. 

It pleaded guilty to a charge contrary to section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant flexible film manufacturer was fined after a worker lost part of his finger in machinery. He was using a machine that converts and folds plastic film. He tried to stop the material becoming tangled by using his hand to stop the poorly guarded rotating shaft. However, in doing so, his right index finger made contact with a rotating part of the machine and became entangled. Due to the seriousness of the injuries, surgery was carried out the following day to amputate part of the finger on his dominant right hand.

The defendant failed to protect its employees, including ensuring the machinery being used to produce it had suitable guarding. The defendant had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, resulting in a failure to provide suitable guarding arrangements on the machine and had failed to put in place an adequate safe system of work. It also revealed inconsistencies and inadequacies in the provision of information, instruction and training for those required to use the machine. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. 

The defendant construction company was fined after a worker fell through the roof of a sheep barn. He was working as part of a project to extend the sheep barn. Roof sheets needed to be installed, bridging the gap between the old roof and new. When the worker stepped onto a fragile roof light it immediately broke under his weight. He fell from a height of around six metres. He suffered life changing injuries including five cranial fractures, 10 fractured ribs, a cranial bleed, hearing loss and fractures to his spine, eye socket, cheek, wrist and shoulder. He also suffered a collapsed left lung and a pulmonary embolism.

The defendant had failed to implement basic working at height control measures, such as safety netting, to prevent falls from height in this area. The netting that was in place on site did not cover full work areas and was installed by persons without the sufficient skills to rig it. There was a failure to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase, to ensure it was carried out in a safe manner.

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

Four paddleboarders died during a tour organised by the defendant’s company. The defendant was present as an instructor alongside a fellow instructor who was killed.

On the day there had been heavy flooding and severe weather warnings were in place. The river was running fast, and the weir was in an extremely hazardous condition. The flood conditions meant that the water approaching the weir was high but the tidal conditions after the weir were lower. At times of high flow in the non-tidal river, the water will accelerate dramatically over the weir, creating a recirculation of water (tow back) at its base which can prevent people from escaping. As the group approached the weir, the three participants were pulled over the top into its base and became trapped. The co-instructor, who initially exited the river safely, re-entered the water in an attempt to rescue the others but was immediately dragged over the top. The four victims died as a result of drowning/immersion.

An expert concluded the tour should not have taken place while encompassing the weir and that the defendant did not have a suitable qualification, and her planning and supervision was inadequate.

The defendant previously pleaded guilty to four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one offence of failing to discharge a duty, contrary to sections 3(2) and 33(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

£10,000 fine.

Ordered to pay £811 in compensation to the victims.

The defendant car dealer pleaded guilty to breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 by failing to meet professional diligence standards. It sold a vehicle to a consumer without disclosing the known engine issues. It allowed the consumer to test drive and ultimately drive away a vehicle that it claimed was not roadworthy. Within 15 minutes of the purchase, the vehicle broke down. A mechanic later determined the head gasket had blown, with repair costs exceeding £3,000. 

A second complaint involved a vehicle that also developed faults shortly after purchase. The defendant tried to limit its liability and the consumer's rights by using terms requiring the buyer to assess the vehicle's full condition, whereas the law requires the trader to ensure the goods are of satisfactory quality.

Five years imprisonment.

18 months imprisonment.

12 months imprisonment.

18 month Community Order.

Ordered to do 25 days unpaid work.

The four defendants sold counterfeit footwear, clothing and accessories. One made regular trips to China to source the illicit goods, making use of multiple false names and ‘safe’ drop off addresses to smuggle the items back to the UK. He then sold the goods as well as acting as wholesaler to two other defendants, who knowingly sold the goods at local markets. The fourth defendant was caught transporting the counterfeit goods and admitted his job was to assist by driving the goods to the market. He claimed that he suspected it was probably counterfeit but that he was being paid simply to be a driver and was not taking a profit from the sale of the counterfeit goods.

This prosecution followed multiple seizures from assorted premises and vehicles between April 2018 and August 2020. As well as assorted counterfeit goods, also found were trademarked labels and machinery to apply such labels to ‘plain’ items. Brands found to be being copied included Adidas, Nike, Timberland, Fendi, Chanel, Givenchy, Ugg and Alexander McQueen.

The defendant car dealer fraudulently sold cars. Several complaints were made by customers who bought faulty cars. They found problems with their cars shortly after buying them from the defendant. One customer took the car back the day after she bought it. The customer did not receive a refund and the defendant resold the car. Several other customers found their service histories and MOT certificates had been falsified.

When Trading Standards officers visited the premises a number of unsafe vehicles were found advertised for sale. An examination of some of the vehicles bought by consumers which were the subject of complaints found that the cars were unsafe or unroadworthy.