Key Facts
- •Atlantic Recycling Limited (Atlantic) pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an environmental permit condition (Condition 3.7.1) regarding fire prevention.
- •The permit required Atlantic to manage activities according to a written fire prevention plan and relevant guidance.
- •Atlantic argued that even if it breached the plan, it didn't breach Condition 3.7.1 because it met or exceeded the guidance's standards and there was no increased fire risk.
- •Atlantic also argued that the material wasn't in 'storage' as defined in relevant case law, and therefore the plan's conditions didn't apply.
- •The Recorder ruled against Atlantic on both issues, leading to this appeal.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of words in a condition in a public document requires an objective approach, considering the natural meaning, overall purpose, other conditions, and potentially other related documents if incorporated by reference or resolving ambiguity.
Trump International Golf Club v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74
Implication of terms into a public document with criminal sanctions requires great restraint and is only justified by necessity.
Trump International Golf Club v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74
In statutory interpretation, the court considers the natural, obvious and ordinary meaning of the words used. This meaning is viewed in context and common sense.
This case
Distinction between storage and recovery of waste, as established in Neal Soil Suppliers v Natural Resources Wales (No 2) [2017] EWCA Crim 645.
Neal Soil Suppliers v Natural Resources Wales (No 2) [2017] EWCA Crim 645
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.
The court held that the permit condition was unambiguous and required compliance with the fire prevention plan. The guidance was to aid compliance with the plan, not to replace it. The arguments regarding risk reduction and the distinction between storage and recovery were not relevant to the clear wording of the condition.