QUESTION 3 :

Critically examine the contention that environmental crimes are generally not evil
in themselves but are made so under regulatory systems and that there is no
necessary connection between pollution and environmental crime.
It is difficult to define an environmental crime with any degree of certainty, primarily
because there are relatively few activities that harm the environment that are crimes in,
and of, them. The criminal law is mainly used to address clearly unacceptable behaviour
and to underpin a system of environmental regulation.
There are 2 basic types of crime recognised. Mala in se crimes are considered to be
naturally evil, immoral or intrinsically wrong, such as murder, rape, burglary, arson and
larceny while mala prohibita crimes are not naturally evil, but are forbidden because
they infringe on the rights of others.
Clearly, any definition that characterise environmental crimes as being activities that
caused harm to the environment would ignore the fact that many such activities are
perfectly lawful.
However, the nature extent of the environmental harm caused by these various crimes
may be questioned. There are many types of activity that cause harm to the
environment, but which would not necessarily be classed as an environmental crime.
For example, the offence of driving a car with exhausts emissions that exceed the legal
limit. The emissions may cause harm when aggregated with many other vehicles, but
should their release be classified as an environmental crime. This uncertainty
contributes to the moral ambiguity surrounding regulatory offences in general and in
certain aspects of environmental crime in particular. The central question is whether
environmental crime should be distinguished from real crimes such as murder or theft.
These latter offences are viewed as being acts that are evil in themselves, whereas
environmental crime is not thought to be inherently immoral but rather as made unlawful
only by statute.

Historically, the commission of environmental crimes by industrial operators was viewed

as purely regulatory in nature as they made a positive contribution to the regional
economy and therefore not criminal in any real sense.

But, the day-to-day

interpretation of environmental law shifts slowly reflects changing public values. The
first extract reflects the notion that the nature of pollution control offences was seen to
be technical in nature with no moral blame. As per Viscount Dilhorne in Alphacell Ltd v
Woodward [1972], This Act, in my opinion, one of those Actswhichdeals with acts
which are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are
prohibited under a penalty.
Within 20 years, the judicial view had shifted to considering water pollution to be clearly
criminal activity. The breach of similar provision was considered clearly to be criminal,
with greater emphasis being placed on the importance of environmental protection. As
per Morland j IN National Rivers Authority v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1994],
The object of the relevant words of the offence and the crime created thereby is the
keeping of streams free from pollution for the benefits of mankind generally and the
worlds flora and fauna
More recently, this view has been reinforced. As per Scott Baker LJ in R v Anglian Water
[2004], the environment in which we live is a precious heritage and it is incumbent on
the present generation to preserve it for the future. Rivers and watercourse are an
important part of the environment and there is an increasing awareness of the necessity
to preserve them from pollution.
Most environmental crimes impose strict liability that is there is no requirement of fault.
The justifications for imposing strict liability for environmental crimes include that it is in
the public interest to do so, that it acts as a deterrent so that those who have to comply
with the law do not take risks, and that it makes it easier for regulators to enforce and
prosecute environmental offences. The potential unfairness of strict liability is balanced
by the existence of certain statutory defences, selective enforcement and the nature of
any sanction.

Thus, generally environmental crimes are not evil in themselves but are made so under
regulatory system and there is no necessary connection between pollution and
environmental crime because many polluting act are lawful.