The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames v Alistair Trotman
[2024] EWHC 9 (KB)
Alistair Trotman v The Environment Agency
16 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 825 (Admin)
High Court
A man left his houseboats illegally moored on the River Thames. He was found guilty but successfully appealed the amount of costs he had to pay because it was too high compared to his fine. The court reduced the amount he owes.
Key Facts
- •Alistair Trotman moored two houseboats, ROR and KUPE, in the Molesey Lock area for an extended period during lock repairs.
- •The Environment Agency (EA) notified Trotman of the byelaw violation and issued directions to move the vessels.
- •Trotman failed to comply, leading to the EA towing the vessels.
- •Trotman was charged with four offences: two under byelaw 49(a) and two under section 84 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.
- •Trotman was found guilty and fined £800, plus ordered to pay £20,591.40 in costs.
- •Trotman appealed the decision via a case stated.
Legal Principles
The EA is entitled to prosecute for byelaw breaches without issuing a fixed penalty notice first.
Thames Conservancy Act 1932, section 242
Charges under byelaw 49 are not invalid for encompassing a period longer than one day, as the byelaw doesn't mandate daily fines for continuing offences.
Thames Navigation Licensing and General Byelaws 1993, byelaw 85
Charges are not invalid for failing to specify the exact location (lock, channel, or cut) of the vessels, as the byelaw uses disjunctive language.
Thames Navigation Licensing and General Byelaws 1993, byelaw 49
Section 79 of the 1932 Act (public right of navigation) does not negate byelaw 49; the public right is subject to byelaws.
Thames Conservancy Act 1932, section 79; Thames Navigation Licensing and General Byelaws 1993, byelaw 49
Section 83 of the 1932 Act allows the harbourmaster to compel vessel movement, even against the owner's wishes.
Thames Conservancy Act 1932, section 83
The EA can claim prosecution costs under section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, section 18
Prosecution costs must be proportionate to the fines imposed, considering the offender's ability to pay. A gross disparity may indicate disproportionality.
R v Associated Octel Co Ltd [1995] Cr App R (S) 435; London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Argos Ltd [2022] EWHC 2466 (Admin); Ashgrove (Swansea) Ltd v Welsh Ministers [2016] EWHC 3786 (Admin); R v Northallerton Magistrates' Court [2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 136
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The costs award of £20,591.40 was disproportionate to the £800 fine, given Trotman's limited income. The court reduced the costs to £12,000.
Appeal dismissed on all other grounds.
The Judge's findings on the other legal questions were upheld.
Similar Cases
The London Borough of Richmond on Thames v Alistair Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2461 (KB)
Lord Demolition v The Environment Agency
[2023] UKFTT 515 (GRC)
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond v Alistair Trotman
[2024] EWHC 2145 (KB)
The London Borough of Richmond v Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2967 (KB)