Checks And Balances – Public Authority Enforcement Powers

WB
Wedlake Bell

Contributor

We are a contemporary London law firm, rooted in tradition with a lasting legacy of client service. Founded in 1780, we recognise the long-standing relationships we have with our clients and how they have helped shape our past and provide a platform for our future. With 76 partners supported by over 300 lawyers and support staff, we operate on a four practice group model: private client, business services, real estate and dispute resolution. Our driving force is to empower our clients by providing quality legal advice, insight and intelligence that enables them to achieve their goals whether personal or business. We are large enough to advise on the most complex matters, but small enough to ensure that our people and our work remain exceptional and dynamic. Building relationships is at the heart of everything we do.
In recent times there appears to have been an increasing trend of public authorities using the arm of the law to seize assets under the criminal code.
United Kingdom Environment

In recent times there appears to have been an increasing trend of public authorities using the arm of the law to seize assets under the criminal code in circumstances where historically they relied largely on the civil courts to address environmental breaches.

The Environment Agency is increasingly using the criminal statutes to achieve what they would consider effective results of seizing assets and using the criminal statutes to  undertake search and surveillance.  In recent times it set up the Illegal Waste Site Taskforce to crackdown on waste crime. 

In the past those operating within the waste permitting regime would have found that the Environment Agency would have consulted with them and attempted to arrive at a result/solution by informing the operator of any breaches and providing them some opportunity to remedy breaches.  In more recent times the Environment Agency has taken the view that deterrence is a more effective remedy and is taking a much more robust stance on enforcing. 

The High Court in the case of Sweeney v Westminster Magistrates Court and another [2014] EWHC 2068 (Admin) has confirmed that due process of law needs to be followed and that even in this case  where a court order authorising search and seizure (without notice) has been obtained it was still perfectly possible for those on the receiving end of such heavy-handed action to challenge both the issuing of the warrant for search and seizure and to question the basis upon which such authorisation was been obtained. 

In the event that you are on the receiving end of heavy-handed action by public authorities it is clear that it will be well worth consulting your lawyers as soon as possible.  In the case of Sweeney the High Court has not only reversed the court order for search and seizure but has also required and that Mr Sweeney's costs be paid and all items returned.  A further claim for damages will no doubt follow.  This is a decision well worth noting both by public authorities and those on the receiving end of enforcement action.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More