Environmental Offences, the Sentencing Guideline and Custodial Sentences

摘要

The outcome in Lawrence was that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the trial judge had been entitled to find on the evidence that the harm caused by the fires was at the top of Category 2 in the Guideline. Moreover, the approach which he had adopted to the determination of the appellant's sentence had not been precluded by the wording of Step 4 of the Guideline. Accordingly, it was held that the sentence had been neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The case is, however, of greater interest than its outcome would suggest due to what it tells us about the practical application of the Guideline. Whilst it might be assumed that the best way to achieve sentencing outcomes which are consistent, fair and proportionate would be for the relevant sentencing guideline to be closely followed, the decision in Lawrence confirms that as far as the Court of Appeal is concerned, this may be accomplished without guidelines being slavishly adhered to. Thus, in the earlier Court of Appeal decision in R. v Thames Water Utilities Ltd~(58) which was successfully relied upon by counsel for the Environment Agency in Lawrence, whilst it was accepted that the sentencing judge "did not engage fully in a step by step approach as required by the Sentencing Guidelines", William Davis J was nevertheless of the view that where "a judge does not follow a structured approach ... such a failure does not invalidate the sentence".~(59) What ultimately matters, therefore, in a case involving an appeal against sentence is not whether the Guideline has been assiduously followed, but rather whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.