The Farmers Mart Jun/Jul 2014 - Issue 34 | Page 13

FARM NEWS

New fly-tipping guidelines
are a ‘triumph’ for farmers,
says solicitor
A leading agricultural solicitor has
welcomed the news that offenders
caught fly-tipping in England and
Wales are to face heavier punishments
from 1 July this year.
David Kirwan, from Kirwans law firm, has
described the tightening up of rules, which
are to be introduced under new sentencing
guidelines, as a ‘triumph’ for the many
farmers who have been affected by flytippers over the years.
Just last September farmers in Dorset
called for a crack-down on fly-tipping after
their farms were targeted in a number of
incidents, whilst in January a Lancashire
farmer spoke of the nightmare of finding
rubbish dumped on his land up to 40 times
in a year. Cumbrian farmers have also been
affected by a spate of fly-tipping episodes.
David Kirwan explained: “According to the
Environment Protection Act 1990, it is the
landowner’s responsibility to remove any
fly-tipped waste that is deposited on their
land.
“Unfortunately, that has often resulted in
crippling bills for innocent and unsuspecting
farmers.
“To this point, penalties for fly-tipping
have been inconsistent, which has made
it difficult for legal professionals to advise
clients on likely outcomes. However the
Sentencing Guidelines Council has now
published guidelines to ensure that the
punishments for these kind of offences are
both standardised and proportionate to the
seriousness of the crime.”

‘Punishments often
far too low for
these offences’
According to figures released by Defra,
local authorities dealt with 711,000
incidents of fly-tipping in England in 20122013, costing local authorities an estimated
£36.4m to remove.
However, farmers have had to shoulder the
cost of clear-up operations themselves.
In 2011 a fly-tipping case resulted in High
Court action after a farmer was accused
of illegally depositing waste that had
originally been fly-tipped at the entrance to
his field. While the farmer had initially been
successful in defending his prosecution,
Milton Keynes Council appealed to the High
Court. The appeal was eventually dismissed
and the farmer was awarded his costs.

Mr Kirwan said: The prosecution of
environmental offences is far less common
than other types of offences which come
before the court and, therefore, magistrates
are often unfamiliar with sentencing
defendants for these offences. This can
result in punishments that are far too low
for the risk to public health caused, not to
mention the distress and inconvenience
caused to the farmers faced with the
waste.
“The new guidelines for environmental
offences are comprehensive and introduce
sentencing ‘starting points’, which must be
referred to by the court when a defendant is
being sentenced.
“This will result in heavier punishments for
most defendants, most notably those who
have committed offences deliberately or
recklessly, causing major or significant harm.
Those who illegally dispose of hazardous
chemicals, sharp objects, or materials such
as asbestos, which could cause harm to
one’s health, should now expect to receive
a custodial sentence, whereas in the past
arguably the lowest kind of punishment may
have been imposed.
“The new g ե