判例法数据库

影响环境的犯罪

禁止行為

• 国际贸易(进口,出口,转口)
• 转移/运输

详情

• 伪造文件
• 无证件/无执照的行为

其他细节

• 伪造文件
• 无执照的行为

关键词

• 国际贸易(进口,出口,转口)
• 转移/运输

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. v The Queen

事实梗概

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. (Biffa) is a provider of waste management services ranging from waste collection to recycling and disposal to the public and commercial sector. Under its recycling activities, Biffa sells certain wastes that can be recycled into new products. This applies to its paper waste operations, a lot of which is exported to other countries for recycling. One destination for the company’s paper waste is China, where two mills have been receiving paper waste from Biffa since 2010 and 2011. In 2015 alone, Biffa exported 110,000 tonnes of waste to these brokers. Waste shipments were subject to regular inspections in England as well as in China. Back then, according to Chinese law for imported paper waste, the waste’s weight had to consist of at least 98.5% paper waste. This number has risen to 99.5% in the meantime.

In May 2015, two shipments said to contain paper waste were inspected at the port of Felixstowe. The containers contained 175 tonnes of waste material. Before transporting the waste, Biffa collects it from a variety of sites and conducts an automated and manual sorting and separation process, at the end of which waste is packaged into bales. Upon opening the containers, it became apparent that some bales included a variety of contaminants, such as “soiled nappies and incontinence pads, sanitary towels, sealed bags containing faeces, items of underwear, other items of clothing, plastic bags, a recycling bag issued by a local authority, plastic bottles, food packaging, electric cable, pieces of wood, metal items, hot water bottles and hi-vis jackets.” It was observed that some bales carried a blue “passed” label, mainly those visible in the first row when opening the container.

In 2019, Biffa was sentenced to criminal fines totalling £350,000. Furthermore, the company was obliged to pay £240,000 in prosecution costs, £9,912 in confiscation order and £120 in statutory surcharge.

判决日期:
2020-06-24

交叉问题

责任

... 为了

• 既遂犯罪

... 作为涉及方

• 主犯
• legal persons

犯罪

详情

• 發生跨一個(或多個)國際邊界(跨國)

所涉国家

大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国

中国

程序步骤

法律制度:
习惯法
最新的法院:
上诉法院
诉讼类型:
刑事的
被告人的审讯:
与同案其他被告一同处理(合并审讯)
 
 
诉讼 #1:
  • 阶段:
    初审
  • 官方案件编号:
    不详
  • 裁决日期:
    Thu Oct 18 00:00:00 CEST 2018

    法院

    • 刑事的

    法院名称

    Wood Green Crown Court

     

    地点

  • 城市/城镇:
    Wood Green
  • 省:
    London
  • 说明

    Biffa was found guilty with respect to the charges of illegal transportation of waste as laid out in the case summary.

     

    结果

  • 陪审团裁决:
    有罪
  • 刑事判决

    刑事判决

    罚金

    付款

    600032 Great British Pound
  • 一般美元数额:
    超过五十万
  • 诉讼 #2:
  • 阶段:
    上诉
  • 官方案件编号:
    [2019] EWCA Crim 20
  • 裁决日期:
    Tue Dec 18 00:00:00 CET 2018

    法院

    法院名称

    Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

     

    地点

  • 城市/城镇:
    Strand
  • 省:
    London
  • • 刑事的

    说明

    The appeal involved around the question of the “true meaning and effect” of Article 36(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. The jury also had to rule on whether the consignments indeed were Y46 household waste.

    The jury found the conviction safe and the appeal was dismissed accordingly. More information can be obtained from the below attachment.

     

    结果

  • 陪审团裁决:
    有罪
  • 诉讼 #3:
  • 阶段:
    上诉
  • 官方案件编号:
    2020-06-24
  • 裁决日期:
    Wed Jun 24 00:00:00 CEST 2020

    法院

    法院名称

    Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

     

    地点

  • 城市/城镇:
    Strand
  • 省:
    London
  • • 刑事的

    说明

    The appeal was two-folded and evolved around the question of whether the judge rightfully excluded certain evidence and rightfully acceded “to the respondent's application that evidence be admitted of the appellant's bad character in order to correct an apparent false impression under s101(1)(f) of CJA 2003.”

    The jury found the conviction safe and the appeal was dismissed accordingly. More information can be obtained from the below attachment.

     

    结果

  • 陪审团裁决:
    有罪
  • 被告/ 初审被申请人

    其他被告人的数目:
    1