The Court of Appeal held that a Circuit Court judge used the wrong legal test when directing acquittals for T.N. in a prosecution arising from waste activities at Kerdiffstown, near Naas. It did not decide whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction or whether the acquittals should be quashed and a retrial ordered. It said it would hear further submissions on the orders to follow.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the appeal under section 23(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010. The case concerned a 2015 direction of not guilty on eight counts: two relating to waste handling likely to cause environmental pollution, and six relating to waste activity outside the terms of a licence. The judgment says no evidence was offered on a separate count, Count 4.
The charges arose from waste operations at a facility in Kerdiffstown, County Kildare, between 2003 and 2008. The prosecution alleged that T.N., as a manager or someone purporting to act as one for Neiphin Trading Limited, consented to or connived in offences by the company. T.N.’s case was that he was a consultant, not a manager or director of Neiphin.
At trial, the judge ruled that the evidence did not show T.N. had authority over the whole company’s affairs or power and responsibility to decide its corporate policy and strategy. The judge said the evidence did not establish that T.N. held the position required by section 9(1) of the Waste Management Act 1996 and directed his discharge from the charges.
The appeal court said the relevant question was whether T.N. functioned as a senior manager with responsibility for a significant part of the company’s activities and direct responsibility for the area at issue: management of the Kerdiffstown site. It noted that the facility was described as Neiphin’s core activity, while making clear that its discussion of the trial evidence was tentative and provided context for the legal issue.
The court therefore found the trial judge had erred in focusing on authority over the whole company and corporate strategy. The judgment addressed only whether the direction was legally correct. The court had accepted that questions about the sufficiency of the evidence and any retrial should be considered later. It made no order in this judgment on quashing the acquittals or directing a retrial.