The Environment Agency (EA) ultimately offered no evidence against the five co-defendants – Damian Lambkin, Chris Littlewood, Ian McQuaid, Adrian House and Reese Baker.
The case was due to be heard on 2 September 2024 but was delayed. According to the defence team, the EA had still not discharged its duty to disclose all relevant documents by the new court date of 5 September. The defendants claim that they made numerous requests for the EA to do so.
The court gave the EA further time to disclose the relevant documents. However, no more were provided and on 17 September the EA offered no evidence against any of the co-defendants. As a result, a non-guilty verdict was delivered to all five accused.
Environment Agency position
An EA spokesperson told letsrecycle.com: “We issued summonses against five men for an alleged conspiracy to defraud a recycling scheme in 2016 in relation to batteries that did not exist. In court, the Environment Agency was clear it remained confident in the strength of the case against all the defendants.
“There was a delay to the start of the trial earlier this month. As a result, we offered no evidence, as a prosecution was no longer in the public interest.”
Other alleged issues with the EA’s case
The defence teams have said that there were other “serious issues” with the EA’s case.
Jonathon Bell, waste solicitor at Dyne Solicitors and representative for co-defendant Lambkin, said: “In my view this was an egregious use of the EA’s powers.
“The case was largely based on wholesale assumptions, and an opaque investigation. Issues were exacerbated by the EA’s lack of engagement with the Defendants. Justice was done, but it is a great shame that it took so long, and came at such high cost to the Defendants and the public purse”.
Lambkin added: “I am delighted that my name has been cleared, but astounded that the EA has acted so badly in the investigation of, preparation for, and bringing of this hopeless case”.
Subscribe for free