In Part 2 of Enviro InSSites, our regulatory specialists Ian Anderson and Emma Reilly consider a significant judgment by the High Court on 22 July 2026, which may have far-reaching consequences for the types of offences that regulators investigate and prosecute.

The High Court was tasked with deciding whether the Environment Agency (EA) could prosecute company directors for conspiracy to defraud offences, or whether the EA was restricted to only prosecuting specific environmental offences.

The background to the case was that the EA alleged that a utility company had manipulated the results of tests on effluent to appear compliant with its environmental permit. It brought charges against the company and its directors for environmental offences, as part of its statutory function, but also for conspiracy to defraud, a common law offence, usually prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service or Serious Fraud Office.

What was argued?

The company directors claimed that the EA, as a statutory corporate body, could not prosecute conspiracy to defraud offences, and proceedings for such offences could only be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office or a private prosecutor.

The EA counter-argued that:

• it had a general right of private prosecution and could charge any type of offence; or alternatively
• it had the power to prosecute offences incidental to the carrying out of its statutory functions.

The High Court rejected the EA’s first argument that it could prosecute any offence but
accepted the alternative argument that it had the power to prosecute offences committed incidentally to the carrying out of its statutory functions.

The claim on behalf of the company directors was rejected. The High Court observed that if the EA was limited only to prosecuting environmental offences, it would not be able to prosecute for crimes such as criminal damage occurring as a result of deliberate flooding or pollution. In the High Court’s opinion, restricting the EA from bringing charges related to its regulatory function would create an ‘absurd’ situation.

What does this mean?

We anticipate that the decision is likely to increase prosecutorial confidence across the regulatory landscape and increase the likelihood of charges for linked offences, including conspiracy to defraud, fraud by false representation, money laundering and criminal damage alongside environmental offences. In our opinion, the decision is likely to lead to a significant increase in prosecutions by the EA for incidental non-environmental offences, which have historically been a rare occurrence.

This is important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, most environmental offences are punishable by a maximum sentence of a fine and/or a 24-month prison sentence. By contrast, the maximum sentences for money laundering, conspiracy to defraud and aggravated criminal damage are 14 years, 10 years and life respectively.

Secondly, the decision may also bring certain types of investigations, which have previously required a multi-agency approach, for example, landfill tax investigations, under the sole remit of the EA.

If you have any questions about environmental offences, white collar offences or private prosecutions, we’re here to help. Get in touch with Ian Anderson on IanAnderson@schofieldsweeney.co.uk or Emma Reilly on EmmaReilly@schofieldsweeney.co.uk.