Pollution in UK Law

The subsection evidently contemplates two things— causing, which must involve some active operation or chain of operations involving as the result the pollution of the stream; knowingly permitting, which involves a failure to prevent the pollution, which failure, however, must be accompanied by knowledge.

In my opinion, complication of this case by infusion of the concept of mens rea, and its exceptions, is unnecessary and undesirable. I agree with the majority of the Divisional Court, who upheld the conviction, except that rather than say that the actions of the Appellants were a cause of the pollution I think it more accurate to say that the Appellants caused the polluting matter to enter the stream.

The vital question is whether the Appellants caused that pollution within the meaning of section 2 (1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The nature of causation has been discussed by many eminent philosophers and also by a number of learned judges in the past. I consider, however, that what or who has caused a certain event to occur is essentially a practical question of fact which can best be answered by ordinary commonsense rather than abstract metaphysical theory.

The process which they operated required contaminated effluent being pumped round their works until it came to rest in an open tank which they sited on the river bank. What they did was something different in kind from the passive storing of effluent which could not discharge into the river save by an act of God or, as in Impress (Worcester) Ltd. v. Rees [1971] All E.R. 357 by the active intervention of a stranger, the risk of which could not reasonably have been foreseen.

Mr Kettel had many years experience in the energy industry, including 16 years at Atlantic Richfield and 9 years at Chevron, in both corporations responsible exclusively for insurance matters. He had for 18 years been a member of the Oil Insurance Group consisting of about 15 insurance managers from the major energy companies, including Exxon, who regularly met to discuss insurance problems. He was also a board member of ITIA – the International Tanker Insurance Association, from 1975 to 1994.

They establish the proposition that the impact of air emissions from a proposed development is capable of being a material planning consideration but in considering that issue the planning authority is entitled to take into account the pollution control regime.

But it is dependent on the underlying assumption that, in relation to the likely impact of pollutants to which the 2000 Regulations apply, primacy must be accorded to the judgment of the regulator above that of the planning authority. I therefore reject Mr Wadsley's contention that it was not open to the inspector to conclude that the impact of dust would be seriously adverse.