Regina (Natural England) v Day
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
- MRS JUSTICE LANG
Areas of Law
- Environmental Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Philip Day acquired the Hayton Estate, which included a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Unauthorized operations in the SSSI led to significant damage, resulting in charges under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite initially pleading not guilty, Day pled guilty post a preliminary ruling and was fined £450,000 plus costs. He appealed the conviction and sentence, which was dismissed on the grounds that the offences were of strict liability, causation was established based on his instructions, and the penalties were proportionate to his wealth and the circumstances.
Judgment
LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD, CJ:
In October 2010 the appellant, Philip Day, a man of enormous wealth and who employs 10,000 people through the companies controlled by him, acquired with his wife the Hayton Estate near Brampton, Carlisle, Cumbria. The estate comprises about 500 acres, mainly of woodland. Part of the estate is bounded by the River Gelt, which runs along the easterly borders of the estate in a north westerly direction and eventually flows into the River Eden. The Gelt at this point has carved a channel through the red sandstone to form a meandering gorge.
The environmental and ecological importance of an area in the gorge within the Hayton Estate was recognised in 1969 when it was designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); that designation was intended to protect it.
In November 2010 operations were carried out within the area of the SSSI without the authorisation of Natural England, the body which, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the 1981 Act), has authority to allow such operations. The operations resulted in the felling of 43 trees, the construction of a track wide enough to take vehicles and the construction of bunds/banks to support the track. Large areas were stripped of trees and flora exposing large areas of soil and rock. The local residents, despite actions intended by the appellant to obstruct them, brought the matters to the attention of Natural England.
As a result, the appellant was charged with offences under s.28E(1) and s.28P(1) of the 1981 Act. It provides as follows:
“28E(1) The owner or occupier of any land including in a Site of Special Scientific Interest shall not … carry out or cause or permit to be carried out, on that land any operation … unless
(a) One of them has … given Natural England notice of a proposal to carry out the operation specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out.”
“S.28P(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse contravenes s.28E(1) is guilty of an offence …”
For the purpose of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), it is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry out an operation (or to fail to comply with a requirement to send a notice about it) if …
the operation in question was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to Natural England as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.”
The appellant was summoned before the Magistrates’ Court, but p