Asbestos Charge Avoided and Immediate Custody Prevented in Environment Agency Prosecution

The EA alleged that our client was the controlling mind of the company and was responsible for overseeing the company’s operations at the site. The prosecution maintained that environmental permits associated with the site had not been complied with and that the land had been used for the unlawful treatment, storage and disposal of waste for financial gain.

Our client had previously been prosecuted in 2024 for a Health and Safety offence concerning the improper removal and disposal of asbestos discovered during the demolition of a hotel, for which he received a significant financial penalty. In the present proceedings, the EA sought to link asbestos-containing material found at the Cornwall site to the same hotel. However, the prosecution was unable to establish that the material had originated from that location.

Following negotiations with the EA, a basis of plea was submitted on our client’s behalf. Significantly, the EA was persuaded not to pursue an asbestos-related offence against our client personally in his capacity as a director of the company.

Instead, the EA agreed to accept a guilty plea from the company to an offence of treating, keeping or disposing of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. 

At sentence, the EA relied upon a number of aggravating features, including previous relevant convictions and a history of non-compliance with regulatory warnings. The prosecution also relied upon the location of the site, which was close to a caravan park, and its contention that the offending had been committed for financial gain.

In respect of the two offences to which our client pleaded guilty in his capacity as a director, he received a sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, thereby avoiding an immediate custodial sentence.

For the three offences to which company pleaded guilty, the company was fined a total of £90,000.

Significantly, notwithstanding the financial-gain allegations advanced during the proceedings, the EA did not pursue confiscation proceedings. Instead, it indicated that the priority was the remediation of the site and its restoration to its original condition.

The outcome also meant that no asbestos-related offence was pursued against our client personally, following negotiations with the EA.

Alex Whitmore was the solicitor with conduct of this case. Mr James Ageros KC of Crown Office Chambers was instructed counsel.