Key Facts
- •Joe Frizell convicted of two offences of depositing controlled waste; Raymond Bowden convicted of operating a regulated facility without a permit.
- •Illegal dumping of waste at Bonnie Braes Farm on a massive scale (March 2014 - early 2015).
- •Frizell's company, TW Frizell, and Bowden's company, Jumbo Waste, involved in the illegal dumping.
- •Significant environmental harm caused, including asbestos contamination and damage to infrastructure.
- •Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and for CCRC investigation of alleged jury irregularities.
- •Fresh evidence from nine witnesses submitted, including co-defendants and relatives.
- •Frizell sentenced to two years' imprisonment; Bowden sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment; Co-defendant Paraszko received a suspended sentence.
Legal Principles
Standard for admitting fresh evidence in appeals; the circumstances in which the court will need to hear evidence from a juror (or jurors) are likely to be rare and exceptional
R v Adams [2007] 1 Cr App R 34; R v Lewis [2013] EWCA Crim 776; R v Baybasin [2014] 1 Cr App R 19
Juror's legal obligations, including reporting irregularities to the judge.
R v Haji [2024] EWCA Crim 955; Criminal Practice Direction 2023, para. 8.3.5
Principles for assessing the fairness and balance of a judge's summing up.
R v Digby [2020] EWCA Crim 1815
Sentencing guidelines for environmental offences.
Not specified, but referenced in the judgment.
Outcomes
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
Insufficient evidence of jury irregularity to warrant investigation or overturn convictions. The case against both appellants was strong and supported by ample evidence.
Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The seriousness of the offences and aggravating factors justified the custodial sentences. The judge properly considered mitigating factors, including ill-health.
Application to adduce fresh evidence and refer to the CCRC refused.
Fresh evidence regarding alleged jury irregularities was deemed insufficient to warrant further investigation.