JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE GENERAL WATER POLLUTION OFFENCES: AN INTERNAL COHERENCE PERSPECTIVE A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Faculty of Humanities 2019 MUNIRA PATEL SCHOOL OF LAW CONTENT PAGE (84,878 words) Contents CONTENT PAGE ....................................................................................................................................... 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 6 DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................................... 8 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 13 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 13 1.2 The Evolution of Environmental and Water Law ............................................................................. 14 1.2.1 European Environmental and Water Law and Policy ................................................................... 22 1.3 Judges and Environmental Law ....................................................................................................... 24 1.4 Aims of the Thesis ........................................................................................................................... 26 1.4.1 Defining Internal Coherence......................................................................................................... 27 1.5 The Theoretical Framework of Immanent Critique and the Methodology of Legal Doctrinal Research ................................................................................................................................................ 32 1.5.1 Immanent Critique ....................................................................................................................... 32 1.5.2 Methodology: Legal Doctrinal Research ....................................................................................... 34 1.5.2.1 Doctrinal Research: A Critique ................................................................................................... 35 1.5.3 Desk-based Research .................................................................................................................... 37 1.6 Thesis Structure and Content .......................................................................................................... 40 CHAPTER TWO: IMMANENT CRITIQUE AND DOCTRINAL LEGAL RESEARCH............................................ 42 2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 42 2.2 Social Critique: Immanent Critique .................................................................................................. 42 2.2.1 ‘Disclosing’ type of critique’ and ‘External Critique’ ..................................................................... 42 2.2.2 Critical Theory and Immanent Critique ........................................................................................ 45 2.3 The Five Stages of Immanent Critique ............................................................................................. 50 2.3.1 Stage One: external criteria for evaluation ................................................................................... 50 2.3.2 Stage Two: legislative intention and benchmark .......................................................................... 53 2.3.3 Stage Three: The practical aspect of law ...................................................................................... 55 2.3.4 Stage Four: The Process of Comparison ....................................................................................... 60 2 2.3.5 Stage Five: the ‘ought’ and the ‘is’ ............................................................................................... 61 2.4 Immanent Critique as a Framework for Evaluation ......................................................................... 63 2.5 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................ 72 CHAPTER THREE: ESTABLISHING INTERNAL CRITERIA ............................................................................. 74 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 74 3.2 Legislative History of ‘Causing’ and ‘Knowingly Permits’ Contrary to Regulation 12 (1) (b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 ....................................................... 75 3.2.1 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 ........................................................................................... 76 3.2.2 Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 ..................................................................................... 78 3.2.3 Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961 ..................................................................................... 79 3.2.4 Control of Pollution Act 1974 ....................................................................................................... 81 3.2.5 Water Resources Act 1991 ........................................................................................................... 82 3.2.6 The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007, 2010, 2016 ..................................................... 83 3.3 The Benchmark of Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 85 3.3.1 The Goal of Preventing Water Pollution ....................................................................................... 85 3.4 Legislative Rationale ........................................................................................................................ 91 CHAPTER FOUR: ALPHACELL v WOODWARD (1972): ‘KNOWINGLY PERMITS’ AND ‘CAUSING’ WATER DISCHARGES. ......................................................................................................................................... 97 4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 97 4.2 ‘Knowingly Permits’ ....................................................................................................................... 100 4.2.1 Alphacell v Woodward [1972] – ‘Knowingly Permits’ ................................................................. 101 4.2.2 Schulmans Incorporated Ltd v National River’s Authority [1993] – Constructive Knowledge .... 103 4.3 Alphacell v Woodward (1972): ‘Causing’ Water Pollution ............................................................. 107 4.3.1. Alphacell v Woodward [1972]: Commissions and Omissions (Passive/Active Distinction) – Active Operation or Chain of Operations ....................................................................................................... 108 4.3.2 Alphacell v Woodward [1972]: Causation (in Fact) ..................................................................... 110 4.3.3 Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972]: Strict Liability ....................................................................... 114 4.3.3.1 Condemnation ......................................................................................................................... 118 4.3.3.2 Ease of Prosecution ................................................................................................................. 119 4.3.3.3 Deterrence .............................................................................................................................. 120 4.3.4 Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972]: Vicarious Liability ................................................................. 131 4.4 Concluding Comments .................................................................................................................. 140 CHAPTER FIVE: JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF ‘CAUSING’ WATER POLLUTION: POST-ALPHACELL v WOODWARD [1972] ............................................................................................................................ 142 3 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 142 5.2 Commissions and Omissions: ‘Active Operation or Chain of Operation’ ....................................... 144 5.2.1 Price v Cromack [1975] and Wychavon District Council v National River’s Authority [1993] ..... 144 5.2.2 Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1994) [1995] ................................................................ 151 5.3 Causation (in Law): Third Party Interventions ............................................................................... 155 5.3.1 Impress (Worcester) LTD v Rees [1971] and National River’s Authority v Wright Engineering Co. Ltd [1994] ...........................................................................................................................................