Environment Agency v Armstrong Environmental Services Ltd

Unlicensed deposit of controlled waste is exempt only where the facts fall within a properly construed exempt activity under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The burden lies on the defendant to prove the exemption on the balance of probabilities. “Manufacture” does not necessarily require a finished product. Reducing waste wood to woodchips may constitute the manufacture of a timber product, including where the woodchips are an intermediate stage in making another product. “Waste wood” and “waste plant matter” have distinct meanings. Waste wood therefore falls within the exemption for manufacture of timber products, but not within the separate exemption for chipping waste plant matter.

The Environment Agency prosecuted Armstrong Environmental Services Ltd for knowingly depositing controlled waste without a waste management licence, contrary to section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The company was convicted by Wigan and Leigh Justices, but Bolton Crown Court allowed its appeal and stated a case.

The company occupied land on which less than 1,000 tonnes of timber waste had been deposited. Its intention was to reduce the material to woodchips for use as animal bedding, fuel or in the manufacture of chipboard. The issues were whether the material and intended process fell within the exemptions in paragraphs 13 or 21 of Schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, and who bore the burden of proving the exemption.

1. The appeal was dismissed, with costs. The company bore the burden under section 101 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 of proving, on the balance of probabilities, facts which disclosed an exempt activity. The relevant construction had to withstand the rigour required in a criminal prosecution.

2. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 exempted the manufacture from waste consisting of wood of timber products, together with storage of waste intended for that activity within the prescribed limit. On its natural construction, reducing waste wood to woodchips was manufacture of a timber product. Manufacture did not necessarily mean final production. The contrast with paragraph 14, which referred specifically to “finished goods”, supported that conclusion.

3. The environmental objectives in Schedule 4 and the underlying waste-disposal policy did not require a different result. The possible presence of melamine board did not alter the conclusion because its quantity and environmental significance had not been established in the Crown Court.

4. Paragraph 21 concerned “waste plant matter”, which was distinct from “waste wood”. The company’s material was waste wood and did not fall within that exemption. That conclusion did not affect the result because the paragraph 13 exemption was established.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from the decision of Bolton Crown Court was dismissed with costs.
• Bolton Crown Court: On 12 December 2003, allowed the appeal against conviction and subsequently stated a case.
• Wigan and Leigh Justices: Convicted the defendant on 3 September 2003.