Dr Rosalind Bradbury, R (on the application of) v Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons National Park Authority)
[2024] EWHC 1242 (Admin)
River Action UK, R (on the application of) v The Environment Agency
24 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1279 (Admin)
High Court
An environmental group sued because they thought the government wasn't doing enough to stop farmers from polluting a river. The judge said the government was trying its best, even if it wasn't perfect, and that the rules about when farmers can put fertilizer on their fields mean it needs to be used when the plants need it, not saved for later.
Key Facts
- •River Action UK, an environmental charity, challenged the Environment Agency's enforcement of the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018.
- •The case focused on the pollution of the River Wye due to high phosphate concentrations from agricultural sources.
- •The key legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Regulation 4(1)(a)(i), concerning the timing of fertilizer application in relation to crop and soil needs.
- •The Environment Agency's approach prioritized advice and guidance before formal enforcement, leading to concerns about the effectiveness of its enforcement.
- •The claimant also argued that the Environment Agency failed to adequately consider the requirements of the Habitats Regulations in its enforcement actions, given the River Wye's protected status.
Legal Principles
Regulators must enforce the law but have discretion in how they do so. A policy guiding enforcement is lawful unless it fetters discretion or is irrational.
R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Blackburn [1968] QB 118; R v Addaway [2004] EWCA Crim 2831; R (Mondelly) v The Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [2006] EWHC 2370; Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v West Berkshire District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 441; R(SSE Generation Limited) v CMA [2022] EWCA Civ 1472
Courts are reluctant to interfere with prosecutorial decisions, affording a significant margin of discretion.
R(Cornerhouse research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2009] AC 756
A competent authority, in exercising its functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directives, but may depart if justified. The scope for departure is narrower when the authority is the principal body responsible for fulfilling the requirements.
R (Harris) v Environment Agency [2022] PTSR 1751; [2022] EWHC 2264 (Admin)
Statutory interpretation should avoid absurd or unworkable results.
R(PACCAR Inc & others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] 1 WLR 2594; [2023] UKSC 28
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found the Environment Agency's enforcement approach, while containing inconsistencies, was not unlawful. The agency's policy was lawful, and its actions, while not perfect, demonstrated a genuine attempt to achieve compliance with the regulations. The court also held that the agency had properly considered its obligations under the Habitats Regulations.
Regulation 4(1)(a)(i) was interpreted to mean that fertilizer application should not exceed the immediate needs of the soil and crop at the time of application.
The court emphasized the regulations' purpose of reducing diffuse pollution by avoiding surplus nutrient applications. The language of the regulation and its context supported this interpretation, rejecting the argument that planning could consider future crop needs over a longer timeframe.
Similar Cases
Stephen William Towse v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
[2024] UKFTT 174 (GRC)
P Nash (trading as RG Nash & Sons) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
[2024] UKFTT 584 (GRC)
C G Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1622 (Admin)
Wildfish Conservation, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2285 (Admin)