Regina (Natural England) v Day

For an offence under section 28E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a preliminary ruling may properly leave the factual question whether the defendant caused an unauthorised operation to the jury after hearing the evidence. A defendant who pleads guilty on a basis that accepts causation, and does not seek to withdraw the plea when the prosecution makes that acceptance clear, cannot later challenge the conviction on an untried causation issue.

A fine for serious environmental offending by a very wealthy individual must reflect culpability and harm, and be sufficient to punish, deter and protect sensitive sites. Deliberate attempts after the offence to intimidate those seeking to report it or to obstruct justice are seriously aggravating. A pending appeal does not suspend a Crown Court fine or costs order.

Regina (Natural England) v Day concerned unauthorised felling, construction of a vehicle track and associated earthworks within a Site of Special Scientific Interest on the Hayton Estate. The appellant was charged under sections 28E and 28P of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Before evidence was heard, the Crown Court at Carlisle ruled that the prosecution's broadly identified acts were capable in law of causing the prohibited operations, while actual causation was for the jury. The appellant then pleaded guilty to two counts. After a Newton hearing, Judge Peter Hughes QC found him grossly negligent and imposed a total fine of £450,000, prosecution costs of £457,317.74 and a four-year default term.

The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. The central questions were whether the preliminary causation ruling was wrong, and whether the fine and its aggravating features were disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction challenge failed. The Crown Court was entitled, before evidence, to hold that the prosecution's broadly stated case was capable of causing the prohibited operations and to leave actual causation to the jury. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the approach in Environment Agency v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd [1992] AC 22, or the narrower submission based on R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56, governed offences under sections 28E and 28P.

2. By maintaining his guilty pleas after the prosecution had expressly stated that they entailed acceptance that his acts caused the operations, the appellant unequivocally accepted causation. He did not seek to withdraw the pleas. The evidence later heard at the Newton hearing would, in any event, have precluded a causation challenge under either proposed approach.

3. The sentence appeal also failed. Post-offence conduct designed to obstruct a prosecution, intimidate local residents, suppress evidence or evade responsibility is seriously aggravating. The judge was entitled to treat those matters as aggravating the environmental offences.

4. Under section 164 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the offender's financial circumstances are relevant to a fine. For a very wealthy individual, the fine must reflect the gravity of the offence and be large enough to punish, deter and protect the public interest in sensitive environmental sites. The judge was entitled to proceed on the undisputed estimate that the appellant's wealth was about £300 million. The £450,000 fine was proportionate, notwithstanding the substantial costs order and reputational consequences.

5. The Court added guidance for future cases. Courts should consider a financial-circumstances order under section 162 for wealthy offenders. The principles requiring prompt payment of a company fine also apply to individuals of enormous wealth. A pending appeal does not suspend a Crown Court sentence or order; there is no power to suspend payment of a fine or costs, and an executive decision not to enforce does not remove the obligation to comply.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant's appeals against conviction and sentence: [2014] EWCA Crim 2683.

• Crown Court at Carlisle: following a preliminary ruling and guilty pleas to two counts, Judge Peter Hughes QC imposed a total fine of £450,000 and prosecution costs of £457,317.74. The lower-court judgment citation was not stated in the judgment.