Queen v William Robert Thompson Morrow
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McAlinden J |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] NICA 71 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 11 December 2019 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2019] NICA 71
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McA11132
Delivered: 11/12/2019
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
THE QUEEN
-v-
WILLIAM ROBERT THOMPSON MORROW
Defendant/Appellant.
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, McCloskey LJ and McAlinden J
_______
McALINDEN J (delivering the judgment of the court)
[1] This is an appeal against the making of a confiscation order in the sum of
£325,609.20 by HHJ Grant on 21 March 2019 at Downpatrick Crown Court. Leave
to appeal was granted by the single Judge on 3 September 2019. On the morning
of trial at Downpatrick Crown Court on 17 April 2018, the appellant pleaded
guilty to offences of depositing and treating controlled waste between 24 May
2013 and 19 November 2015 contrary to Article 4(1)(a) and Article 4(6) of the
Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (the “1997 Order”)
and an offence of keeping controlled waste between 18 November 2015 and
6 April 2016 contrary to Article 4(1)(a) and Article 4(6) of the 1997 Order.
Following the making of the confiscation order on 21 March 2019, the appellant
was sentenced to 180 hours of community service in respect of each of the three
charges of depositing, treating and keeping controlled waste on 10 April 2019 by
HHJ Grant at Downpatrick Crown Court, each sentence to run concurrently. The
appellant has not sought leave to appeal the community service sentences
imposed on 10 April 2019.
[2] The charges relate to the deposition, treatment and keeping of controlled
waste on lands owned by the appellant at 102 Ballydrain Road, Comber. These
lands are located near Castle Espie and are adjacent to the Strangford Lough
Area of Special Scientific Interest. On 19 November 2015, officers from the
Northern Ireland Environment Agency (“NIEA”) carried out an inspection of
premises adjoining the appellant’s land. It was noted that a shed was being built
on the appellant’s property on top of an area of infill. The owner of the
2
neighbouring property informed the NIEA that he had seen lorries depositing
materials on the appellant’s site several times a day during the summer of 2015.
Prior to this, in or around 2014, a house and some outbuildings had been
demolished on this site.
[3] The NIEA conducted an inspection of the appellant’s property on
15 December 2015. The Agency’s officers observed a large area of waste infill,
consisting of clay, building rubble, wood, glass, tarmac and plastic piping. Other
items among the infill included golf trolleys, a child’s bicycle, a water tank,
radiators, metal girders, concrete slabs, electrical wiring, toilet seats, textiles,
linoleum, for sale signs, paint tins, hard plastic, wrapping material, shoes,
plumbing parts and window frames. The infill material had been flattened and
covered with a layer of gravel to a depth of 0.2 to 0.5 metres. On 5 April 2016, an
intrusive survey was conducted by the NIEA. It was estimated that the infilled
area was 1,223 cubic metres in volume and the overall amount of material was
estimated to weigh approximately 3,942 tonnes.
[4] The appellant was interviewed by the NIEA on 25 May 2016. He initially
stated that the materials contained in the infilled area had been taken from
buildings onsite as well as from his other properties at 40 Ballydrain Road,
Comber and 6 Tullynakill Road, Comber. He said that he had demolished
buildings on his three properties for the purpose of constructing the platform
which was then in situ at the subject property. The appellant later accepted that
the majority of the materials present in the platform were brought onto the
subject site from sites other than those owned by him. The appellant contended,
however, that the materials emanating from the three sites owned by him were
always intended for the purposes of building a construction platform on the
subject site and, accordingly, should not be classified as waste.
[5] As part of his preparations for the trial of this matter, the appellant
retained the services of Dr Craig Fannin of TerraConsult Limited who carried out
test excavations on site and provided expert reports which were placed before
the court. In pleading guilty to the three counts referred to above, the appellant
put forward a basis of plea to the effect that although the majority of the material
in the platform was brought from sites other than those owned by the appellant
and was, therefore, rightly classified as waste, a significant amount of the
material present in the platform (49%) was building rubble and similar material
originating from the demolition of buildings on the appellant’s properties that
had been demolished to provide such material and as such this material was not
waste.
[6] The prosecution did not accept the appellant’s assertion that the material
in the platform on the subject site which originated from the appellant’s
properties was not waste. Consideration was given as to whether this disputed
issue should be resolved by way of a Newton hearing or as part of the
confiscation order process. It was accepted by the Crown and the defence that
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Queen v John Hanrahan and James John Hanrahan
...reason why the elementary requirements of procedural fairness cannot be observed. In the recent decision of this court in R v Morrow [2019] NICA 71, at [32] especially, one finds emphasis on the consideration that every defendant’s fair trial rights extend to the sentencing process. In the ......
-
King v Filippo Sangermano
...principles identified in para [29] above, resonates strongly in this passage. [38] The more recent decision of this court in R v Morrow [2019] NICA 71 is another illustration of the adoption of R v Newton without demur. What emerges from this decision is the importance of both the parties a......