Environmental Law News Update

The High Court in R (on the application of Matthew Wright) v Medway Magistrates’ Court [2026] EWHC 1842 (Admin) has confirmed, in refusing an application for judicial review, that the Environment Agency (the ‘EA’), has the power to prosecute offences of any nature in circumstances where the prosecution is incidental to its functions, this power was granted to the EA by Parliament in section 37(1) of the Environment Act 1995 (the ‘Act’).[1]

 Background

In December 2025, the EA applied to the magistrates’ court for the issue of a summons, charging the four individuals, who had been employees of Southern Water at the material time, with conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law.

In summary, the EA’s case in the criminal proceedings is that the defendants had been involved in the deliberate manipulation of operations at wastewater treatment works to undermine the regulatory controls of the wastewater quality monitoring system for which the EA is responsible. As the High Court observed, what is alleged against the defendants “involves carefully planned and extensive fraud and dishonesty at a high level within the Company and on a large scale” [para 3]. The High Court was told by the EA that, on Southern Water’s own assessment, the company avoided penalties in the order of £45 million, and on the EA’s assessment the sum avoided was higher [para 3].

The application for judicial review was by one of the defendants, Matthew Wright, who argued that the EA had no power to institute these proceedings and that the summons was therefore a nullity [para 1].

Decision

The High Court (Lord Justice Popplewell giving the judgment, with which Mr Justice Hilliard agreed) confirmed the decision of the District Judge in the magistrates’ court, namely that the EA had the power to prosecute the four individuals for conspiracy to defraud.

The core of the judgment can be found in the construction of the statutory power to bring criminal proceedings, found in section 37(1) of the Act. The Court agreed with the EA that section 37(1) enables the EA to prosecute for any offence of any nature in circumstances in which such a prosecution is capable of being calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions; and where in the EA’s opinion the prosecution is so facilitative or conducive or incidental [para 31].

In order to illustrate the court’s decision, and why it rejected the Claimant’s argument that the power under section 37(1) of the Environment Act 1995 solely extended to prosecutions for statutory offences under environmental legislation, Lord Justice Popplewell gave hypothetical examples of unreasonable and anomalous results. These included, but were not limited to, the EA being unable to prosecute for criminal damage to any land, waterways or facilities for which it was responsible, even if it comprised deliberate pollution or sabotage of flood defences. Or if there was an escape from agricultural land which damaged the environment, the EA could not prosecute for criminal nuisance [para 35].

The decision by the High Court confirms that the EA’s powers of prosecution are wide-ranging and not limited to environmental offences. However, before proceeding, parties should remember that any decision to prosecute must be calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any or all of the EA’s functions.

[1] The High Court also refused an application for anonymity by the Claimant in these proceedings, this part of the judgment is not considered in this blog which is focused on the environmental law element of the judgment.