[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Tapscott, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1787 (09 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/1787.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Crim 1787

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		9 July 2007

1. JUDGE ROGERS: On 10th August 2006 in the Crown Court at Plymouth before His Honour Judge Gilbert QC, this applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of depositing controlled waste on land in respect of which no waste management licence authorising the deposit was in force. Subsequently, on 23rd October 2006 he pleaded guilty to a further similar count and on 16th February 2007 he pleaded guilty to a fifth similar count. On 2nd March 2007, having asked to have taken into consideration a further similar offence, he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Gilbert QC to a total of 16 months' imprisonment. In addition, the judge made an order pursuant to section 147 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 disqualifying him from driving for two years. He now renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. Mr Lewin, prior to today's hearing, indicated in writing to the court that the sole ground of this application relates to the disqualification.
2. The facts are as follows. The applicant applied to become a registered waste carrier in April 2005 and his application was granted on 10th May of that year. He was legally obliged to deposit waste at approved sites only. On numerous occasions he failed to comply with this legal obligation.
3. Turning to the counts to which he pleaded guilty.

Count 1. His company known as "Budget Waste" advertised their services in a local evening newspaper. A woman employed the business to carry out a house clearance at £120 per load. There were seven-and-a-half loads so the total charge was £900. On 17th May 2005 the waste from that house clearance was found dumped at a gateway in Broadley Woods, Roborough. The waste included cans and bottles with a potential risk to wildlife. Fly tipping had been an ongoing problem at that site for some years.

4. Count 2 involved waste from the site traced to a house clearance by some postcards found in the rubbish. Officers from the Environment Agency attended the address on 26th May 2005. One of the officers put a business card inside a fridge which still had to be removed. Subsequently, further waste, including the fridge with the business card in it, was found dumped at Hele Farm in Bickleigh on 7th June 2005.
5. The applicant was interviewed on 28th June 2005 and made no comment to questions. Thereafter he was bailed and the offences in counts 3 and 4 and the two offences he asked to have taken into consideration were committed whilst he was on bail.
6. Count 3 involved a van registered to the applicant being seen carrying a load of waste to the bottom of Poole Park Road, a residential area in St Budeaux, on 5th August 2005. It returned empty a short while later. Items of household waste had been dumped at the site including a fridge freezer.
7. Count 4 involved an offence committed in November 2005. A customer saw an advert for Budget Waste in a newspaper and engaged their services for a house clearance. The customer paid £100 for the waste to be taken away on the understanding that the price included approved waste site fees. The waste was subsequently discovered dumped at the top of Mowhay Road in Plymouth. Fly tipping at this site had also been a frequent problem.
8. There were two similar offences that the applicant asked to have taken into consideration and they were committed on 12th October 2006 and 8th December 2006.
9. The overall cost for the Environment Agency investigation and legal costs was £10,706. The clean up operation cost £3,966 and the investigative and legal cost to Plymouth City Council amounted to £3,714.
10. The applicant is aged 39. He has appeared before the courts on 25 previous occasions in the main for offences of theft, dishonesty, vehicle taking and motoring offences. The latter include several convictions for driving whilst disqualified. The previous sentences had in the main been non-custodial penalties but there had been some short custodial sentences.
11. The pre-sentence report indicated that the applicant had told the probation officer that financial difficulties had meant he could not afford to deposit the waste legally. He had an established pattern of offending for financial gain. He had learning difficulties and struggled at school. He had worked mainly in the building trade but at the time the report was prepared was on sickness benefit. He did live in a stable background with his partner and their children.
12. The judge in imposing the sentence referred to the unrelated previous convictions. He told the applicant he would receive credit for his plea of guilty. The judge went on to indicate the serious nature of these offences, aggravated as they were by the applicant's total disregard for the law and other people. The judge in determining the total sentence of 16 months' imprisonment referred to the aggravating factors set out in the Sentencing Advisory Panel's advice on environmental crime. The judge had not asked for counsel's submissions in respect of a possible period of disqualification.
13. The grounds of appeal were initially twofold. First, it was submitted that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive, and secondly, that the disqualification from driving was unwarranted and unfair, there having been no opportunity for any submission to be made on behalf of the applicant.
14. The single judge in refusing leave set out two reasons why there is no merit in the appeal against the sentence. Subsequently, as we have indicated, counsel Mr Lewin abandoned any application in respect of the sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. However, he does submit that the disqualification ought not to have been imposed or if it had for a shorter period. In support of that submission he makes these two points. First, this applicant, having now been released on a tag, is hindered from obtaining employment by virtue of this disqualification. Secondly, Mr Lewin reminds us that he has a clean licence and is a man who requires his driving licence in order to support his family. We have also borne in mind that this applicant had the very good sense to accept the advice given by Mr Lewin in respect of the lack of merit in challenging the prison sentence.
15. In the end, we have concluded that the judge was right to impose a period of disqualification. However, we feel that justice can be done by reducing the disqualification from a period of two years to one year. To that extent this application is successful and to that extent this appeal is allowed.
(A representation order was later granted to counsel)