A LIMERICK businessman lodged an appeal against a criminal conviction and penalty of almost €13,000 for non-compliance with a notice served by Limerick City and County Council.
The notice, dated August 9, 2023, served on James Beechinor, of North Bridge Filling Station, Kilmallock, required him to explain how waste water was being disposed of at the location of his premises.
Mr Beechinor was fined €4,000 and ordered to pay €8,734.70 court costs after the Council successfully prosecuted him at Limerick District Court for alleged non-compliance with a notice seeking information under the Local Government Water Pollution Act 1997.
Will Leahy, solicitor for the Council, told the appeal hearing, held at Limerick Circuit Criminal Court, that the Council had “grave concerns” about how waste water was being disposed of at Mr Beechinor’s premises.
It was accepted by all parties that a notice, dated August 9, 2023, was sent by the Council and received by Mr Beechinor.
“All I need to prove is that a notice was served and received, and not complied with, I say,” Mr Leahy submitted.
“Mr Beechinor tried to delay this prosecution, it had been before the District Court 12 times,” Mr Leahy said.
“The Council had grave concerns of pollution as a result of activities at these premises.”
Mr Leahy said the “only avenue” legally which had previously been open to Mr Beechinor in respect of the Council notice was a judicial review, “and he did not take a judicial review”.
“So the notice stands. If there (had been) any issue with the contents of the notice, it was open to Mr Beechinor to go to the High Court, which he did not take up.”
Mr Beechinor’s barrister, senior counsel Brian McInerney, submitted to the court that the Council’s notice was “deficient”, “unlawful”, “improper”, “bizarre”, and “absurd”.
Mr McInerney said it was not disputed that the Council served Mr Beechinor with a notice “that they required certain things”.
However, Mr McInerney submitted that the notice in question had “no validity” and, as such, Mr Beechinor did not have to reply to what was an “unlawful request”.
Mr McInerny argued that the notice had not sought information from Mr Beechinor, rather it had “requested he engage a site surveyor who was then to provide a report and include comment on a water treatment system”.
Mr McInerney submitted it was an “improper” request by the Council and that it had no basis in law.
“This is of importance to my client, he is facing a criminal conviction and a substantial fine,” Mr McInerney told the court.
“The council, I submit have gone OTT (over the top) and they need to be restrained.”
Mr McInerney said Mr Beechinor had no prior convictions, “and to suggest, if you don’t reply to a notice, that you are a criminal – that is bizarre”.
Mr Leahy, in summing up, told the court: “The Council can decide what information it requires; it’s not for Mr Beechinor to decide what information is required.”
“Mr Beechinor is out of time. It is conceded the notice was sent and it is consented that the notice was received.”
In response, Mr McInerney said the prosecution against Mr Beechinor was “bizarre” and “absolutely absurd”.
The court heard the maximum sentence for non-compliance with a notice served under Section 23 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 – 2007, is a fine not exceeding €5,000 and or a jail sentence not exceeding three months.
Judge Colin Daly said he would give his judgement later this year.