The Court of Appeal has quashed T.N.’s acquittal on waste management charges and ordered a retrial, finding that the interests of justice required a jury to decide the merits of the case under the court’s interpretation of the law.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2018, President Birmingham said the prosecution had adduced evidence on which a jury could conclude that T.N. was a “manager or other similar officer” of Neiphin Trading Ltd., or had purported to act in that capacity. The court said it would not set out a detailed analysis of the evidence, to avoid appearing to constrain arguments at any retrial. It stressed that the defence remained free to contest the evidence, seek a direction and make closing submissions.
The charges arose from T.N.’s alleged involvement in a waste dumping facility at Kerdiffstown, Naas, County Kildare, between October 2003 and March 2008, when Neiphin Trading Ltd. operated the facility. The prosecution alleged that T.N., as a director, manager or similar officer, consented to or connived in offences by the company under the Waste Management Act.
At the 2015 trial, after the prosecution closed its case, the trial judge ruled that the evidence had not established that T.N. was a director, manager or similar officer, or had purported to act in that capacity. The jury acquitted him on the judge’s direction. In an earlier judgment on 29 January 2018, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had erred in that interpretation of the law. It then agreed to hear further submissions on whether the evidence could support a conviction and whether a retrial was in the interests of justice.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the offences were serious, carried penalties of up to ten years’ imprisonment and could be tried fairly despite the passage of time. T.N. challenged that position, pointing to the lapse of time since the alleged offences, the 2015 acquittal and the prospect that a retrial might not take place until 2020. He also argued that the proceedings and potential penalties had caused significant stress.
The court acknowledged that there were no individual victims, though people living near the facility had testified about their experiences, and said pollution and environmental damage affected the community. It distinguished the case from the Supreme Court’s decision in DPP v. JC (No. 2), noting that this case did not involve a change to long-established law. The court ordered the acquittal quashed and a retrial, but said it would hear counsel on any ancillary orders. It did not decide whether T.N. was guilty.