banner small

Grosvenor pleads guilty to six of 19 charges over exports

Grosvenor Waste Management Ltd has pleaded guilty to six of out of 19 charges concerning notification rules for the export of materials for recycling sent to Europe and the Far East.

Appearing before Maidstone Crown Court today, a lawyer for the Kent-based firm said it was pleading guilty to the charges which concerned exports of containers intercepted in Southampton, Holland and Indonesia. Grosvenor accepted that correct notification had not been given to accompany the recyclable material.

The company has agreed to pay 85,000 towards the legal costs of the Environment Agency, which brought the case under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 (see letsrecycle.com story).

The case was adjourned for sentencing on April 4, after the Environment Agency proposed that the further charges remained on file, since it was not in the public interest to proceed to trial for the remaining charges.

Nigel Rumfitt QC, defence counsel for Grosvenor Waste Management, said: “The company pleads guilty to counts 1-6 and not guilty to counts 7-19.”

He added: “I can confirm we have agreed to pay 85,000 towards prosecution costs.”

Importantly, it was noted in court that there was no question at all of Grosvenor exporting material for landfill or disposal overseas. During the court hearing, the defence noted that: “It has also been agreed with the Prosecution, that the Prosecution are not able to say that the shipments that were the subject of the indictment were destined for overseas landfill.”

Sailesh Mehta, representing the Environment Agency, said “This is a case that involves four limbs – the export of large numbers of containers of household and other waste at Southampton, Thamesport, Indonesia and a number of containers in Holland.”

He explained: “In counts 1-6, three of the four limbs are dealt with, concerning Southampton, Holland and Indonesia. We therefore believe it is not in the public interest to proceed to trial for the remaining one limb. We propose it remain on file.”

Mr Mehta said that although 85,000 did not cover all the Environment Agency's costs, there had “happily been agreement on costs.”

  • A statement from the Environment Agency concerning the case is available on the Agency's website.

Register for free to comment

Subscribe to receive our newsletters and to leave comments.

The Blog Box

Back to top

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest waste and recycling news straight to your inbox.

Subscribe
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.