Environmental Enforcement Policy
Code of Conduct, evidential tests, public interest test and authorisation
Information on code of Conduct, evidential tests, public interest test and authorisation.
7.0 Code of Conduct (Public interest and evidential tests)
7.1 Evidential tests
7.1.1 Officers must consider the evidential burden in bringing a Prosecution. The test for evidential burden is that the Council must show to the Court that the defendant's guilt can be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
7.1.2 This test should be in the mind of officers when considering evidence accumulated throughout the course of an investigation with the aim of strengthening the Council's case.
7.1.3 To assist in achieving the evidential burden officers must consider the application of
the following;
- seeking out as many witnesses as possible and achieving written statements
- following up any defence put forward and recording the further investigation
- photographs taken on site visits are vital and are a useful tool to support the investigation. An officer should consider if photographs taken go far enough to prove the offence
- making detailed site reports in officers notebooks listing times, dates, places, comments made by other persons and by the officer detailing any conversations. ensuring that formal interviews are tape recorded and in accordance with the Police
- and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) (PACE)
7.1.4 The ultimate aim of producing quality evidence is to assist the Legal Services Department in determining that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.
7.2 Public interest test
7.2.1 It is not the rule that every criminal offence must be automatically prosecuted.
7.2.3 The Council must consider if bringing a prosecution is in the 'Public Interest' to prosecute.
7.2.4 The Council must consider a range of factors set out below, balancing a 'for and against' before coming to a decision.
7.2.5 Public interest factors that can affect the decision to prosecute usually depend on the seriousness of the offence or the circumstances of the suspect.
7.2.6 Some factors may increase the need to prosecute, but others may suggest that another course of action would be better.
7.2.7 A prosecution is likely to be needed if:
- a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
- the defendant was in a position of authority or trust;
- the evidence shows that the defendant was a ringleader or an organiser of the offence;
- there is evidence that the offence was premeditated;
- the defendant has ignored previous verbal and/or written warnings given by the Council;
- there is evidence that the offence was carried out by a group;
- the victim of the offence was vulnerable, has been put in considerable fear, or suffered personal attack, damage or disturbance;
- the offence was committed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, a child;
- the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin, disability, sex, religious beliefs, political views or sexual orientation, or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics;
- the defendant's previous convictions or cautions are relevant to the present offence;
- the defendant is alleged to have committed the offence while under an order of the court;
- there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
- the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread in the area where it was committed; or
- a prosecution would have a significant positive impact on maintaining community confidence.
7.2.8 A prosecution is less likely to be needed if:
- the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty;
- the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding
- (these factors must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence);
- the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident,
- particularly if it was caused by a misjudgment;
- there has been a long delay between the offence taking place and the date of the
- trial, unless:
- the offence is serious;
- the delay has been caused in part by the defendant;
- the offence has only recently come to light; or
- the complexity of the offence has meant that there has been a long investigation;
- a prosecution is likely to have a bad effect on the victim's physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence;
- the defendant is elderly or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from significant mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is real possibility that it may be repeated.
- the defendant has put right the loss or harm that was caused (but defendants must not avoid prosecution or diversion solely because they pay compensation); or
- details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security.
7.2.9 The above list is not exhaustive and the Council should consider each case on its own merits.
8.0 Authorisation
8.1 Only officers who are authorised by the council may undertake certain aspects of environmental enforcement action; to include the signing and serving of notices. Such authorisation is given through a scheme of delegation.
8.1.1 Action taken under legislation to which this policy applies will only be conducted by such authorised officers who are suitably experienced, trained, current and competent. Authorised officers will carry identification as proof of their authorisation and to what legislation their authorisation relates.
8.1.2 The Council recognises the varying levels of complexity in enforcement and may vary the powers conferred upon authorised officers, depending on their experience, qualifications and competency.