In Biffa Waste Services v R [2020] EWCA Crim 827, Biffa was appealing its conviction for two offences of illegally transporting waste incorrectly labelled as paper. The company sent about 175 tonnes of waste, which included dirty nappies, plastics and other contaminants, from its recycling facility in London to two mills in China. However, the lorries were stopped at Felixstowe by the Environment Agency. Biffa was found to have breached the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007, fined £350,000 and ordered to pay costs of £240,000.
Biffa contended that the judge erred in law by excluding evidence from the jury as to whether the waste complied with Chinese standards for recyclable paper. Dismissing the appeal, however, Lord Justice Holroyde said ‘the opinions of mill owners, or foreign legislatures or environmental agencies, as to how to determine what constitutes paper waste are irrelevant’.
Holroyde J clarified that waste must be categorised ‘at the point where its export begins… regardless of what might happen to it when it reaches its destination’.
Barrister Sailesh Mehta, Red Lion Chambers, said: ‘In court, Biffa said that the appeal was important for the company as well as for the whole of the waste industry.
‘The Environment Agency’s case was that Biffa had either not sorted household waste properly or at all. Biffa said the contaminants were “de minimis”.
‘The court ruled that one must look only at the nature and quality of the material when it left Biffa’s site. Evidence that the material may have met the receiving country’s national standards, or the recipient paper mill’s ability to recycle the waste was inadmissible. Such evidence would have been contrary to the purpose of the legislation. This clarifies the law, and makes the jury's task simpler.’
