Tyres on the Meath Site: Commencement, Continuing Offences and Penalty
A waste-collection company, Nolan & Sons Ltd, deposited about 40 tonnes of shredded tyres at an unlicensed site in County Meath between 18 and 27 February 2024. Local authority inspectors found the material still on site on 6 March 2024. The Environment (Waste Tyres) Act 2024 was signed by the President on 10 January 2024 but section 1(3) provides that it 'shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may by order appoint'; the Minister's order fixed 1 March 2024. Section 12 creates the offence of 'knowingly holding waste tyres at an unauthorised facility', punishable on indictment by a fine not exceeding €500,000. Under the 1996 Act, the maximum fine was €12,700 and the offence was 'permitting the deposit of waste on land'. The company's permit expired on 29 February 2024 and was not renewed. The director, Ms. Byrne, accepts the February deliveries but says no tyre entered the site after 27 February. The inspectors' log records that a lorry entered the site on 4 March and that a gate was unlocked. The file contains no record of what the lorry carried.
1. The solicitor asks whether the company can be prosecuted under section 12 at all, and if so, what maximum fine the court may impose. Advise, isolating each interpretive question and showing how it should be resolved.
Read the worked answer
1. What does 'holding' mean? This is the pivot of the case. Compare the text and purpose of section 12 with the 1996 formula ('permitting the deposit of waste on land'). The older offence was act-based and complete on deposit. 'Holding' describes a state rather than a single act, and the long title and the mischief (stockpiled tyres with fire and leachate risk) support a continuing offence reading: the offence subsists for as long as the tyres remain at an unauthorised facility. If that reading is right, material still present after 1 March can found a charge even if every delivery predates commencement.
2. Can the February deliveries be used? No. The Act speaks only from commencement. Article 15.5.1° provides that the Oireachtas shall not declare acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission, and the common-law presumption against retrospectivity is at its strongest for penal statutes. Only express words or necessary implication could displace it; neither is present. So the 18–27 February deliveries cannot be charged under section 12, though they remain chargeable, within time, under the 1996 Act.
3. Which maximum applies? The €500,000 maximum attaches to an offence committed after 1 March, so there is no retrospectivity problem for post-commencement holding. If the only proved holding were pre-commencement, the old limit would govern.
4. 'Knowingly'. Knowledge of the holding and of the lack of authorisation must be proved. The permit lapsed on 29 February, which is powerful evidence of knowledge from that date, but an honest and reasonable belief that renewal was automatic would negate the mental element.
5. Ms. Byrne personally. Section 12, as quoted, creates no director liability. Look for an ancillary provision (consent, connivance or neglect) and remember it cannot operate on pre-commencement conduct. Finally, confirm that the commencement order was in fact made and effective before charging.
2. What turns on the lorry recorded entering the site on 4 March, and how should counsel handle the fact that the log does not record what it carried?
Read the worked answer
The lorry is the difference between a strong case and a contested one.
If tyres came in on 4 March, there is an unambiguous post-commencement act of receiving and holding at an unauthorised facility. The continuing-offence argument then becomes a fallback rather than the foundation of the prosecution, and the mens rea point is easier: the driver or director knew tyres were being brought to a site with no permit.
If the lorry was removing tyres, the prosecution stands or falls on the continuing offence reading of 'holding' in question 1, because every delivery predates commencement.
Evidential discipline. The absence of a record of the load does not help either side. The burden of proving each element beyond reasonable doubt stays with the prosecution; the defence is not required to explain the lorry call, and it would be an error to build a positive case on silence. Conversely, defence counsel should not invite the court to infer the lorry was empty, which would concede the relevance of the entry.
What to seek in disclosure: weighbridge dockets, waste-transfer manifests, the driver's identity and any statement, site CCTV covering the gate, and GPS or tachograph data for the vehicle. The unlocked gate is separately useful to the prosecution on control and knowledge, and useful to the defence if the site was being used by third parties without the company's knowledge.
Practical stance. Advise a written request for the missing material before the return date. If it is not forthcoming and the lorry is central, consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence rather than a speculative defence. Flag the point in any submission on penalty, since an unproven allegation of a March delivery should not aggravate sentence.
3. Assume a conviction follows. How should the expiry of the permit and the new €500,000 maximum be handled in submissions on sentence?
Read the worked answer
Treat the two as separate questions, because they pull in different directions.
Culpability. The lapse of the permit on 29 February is not an element of the section 12 offence in itself; what matters is whether the facility was authorised at the time of the holding. But the lapse is highly relevant to culpability. If renewal was in train and the company believed it had complied, that mitigates. If the company simply traded on after expiry and kept stockpiling, it aggravates, because the risk was known and self-created.
The statutory maximum. A new and much higher ceiling signals legislative seriousness, but it is a ceiling, not a starting point. A fine must be proportionate to the offence, to the offender's means, and to the harm: tonnage, duration, proximity to watercourses, fire risk, and any clean-up cost borne by the local authority. Ask for the company's accounts; an uncontrolled fine can be a licence fee for a large operator and a closure order for a small one.
Mitigation to marshal: prompt engagement with the inspectors, remediation and removal of material (or a credible plan and costings), no previous conviction, cooperation with the investigation, and any financial reality.
Aggravation to anticipate: the volume (40 tonnes is not a technical slip), the extended period of holding, the expired permit, and any indication that the March lorry was a further delivery.
Practical point. Given the gap between the old and new maxima, be ready to address whether any part of the offending straddles commencement; if the court is being invited to sentence on a continuing offence, the sentencing range should be anchored to conduct after 1 March and not to the pre-commencement stockpiling.