Thames Water Utilities Ltd appealed the £2 million fine handed to them following a guilty plea to an environmental offence, but the appeal has been dismissed.
The company was fined in December 2018 after they admitted causing pollution from the discharge of untreated sewage from one of their pumping stations into a nearby brook. The incident took place in 2015 after a malfunction in the operative pump at the pumping station. Although alarms highlighted the malfunction present, and staff were aware, no immediate steps were taken to correct it. Consequently 82,000 litres of untreated sewage discharged into a nearby brook which killed a large number of bullhead fish in the watercourse.
This was not the first time the company had been convicted for an environmental offence. The judge considered the previous convictions and fines and the company’s recklessness by failing to act when imposing the £2 million fine.
On appeal of the fine amount Thames Water argued the fine level was manifestly excessive. They claimed the judge had failed to engage in the step-by-step exercise required by the sentencing guidelines and had further failed to explain how he reached the figure of £2 million.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original £2 million fine.
They commented the judge’s sentencing remarks in the original case had, like the appellant claimed, failed to set out clearly how they reached the fine and not engaged fully in the step-by-step approach the sentencing guidelines requires. However the court ruled that had the judge engaged in the step-by-step approach required by the guideline, he would have reached the same conclusion as he did when applying a less structured approach.
In terms of whether the fine was manifestly excessive, the appeal Court stated the offence was a breach of environmental law committed by a very large organisation due to corporate recklessness, therefore it can’t be said the fine was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Thames Water had also argued the fine imposed was greater than for a previous conviction in Reading Crown Court. The appeal court said the sentence imposed by Reading Crown Court could be of no persuasive effect in deciding the fine for this case.
Finally, Thames Water asked the appeal Court to note the difficulties faced by very large organisation in assessing fines in any case. They suggested an additional table should be added to the sentencing guidelines to provide ranges of fines for different categories of offence. The court stated it did not set out sentencing ranges by reference to figures because very large organisations varied greatly in size and in the nature of their operation. Consequently the Sentencing Council had taken an informed decision to provide only general guidance for sentences in relation to very large organisations. There was therefore no basis for amending such an approach and the appeal was dismissed.
