Letter: Hiding behind right to silence
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Ray Clarke
Sir: The judgment by the Court of Appeal in the Guinness fraud trial (Law Report; "Guinness defendants' appeals dismissed", 28 November) will no doubt bring a sigh of relief from the newly created Environment Agency and the green lobby. The relief may be temporary given that it will be considered by the European Court and a decision is expected early next year.
The appeal considered the powers of DTI inspectors under the Companies Act and the obligation to answer questions on pain of sanctions contrary to the principle of the right to silence.
Under similar provisions in environmental legislation, regulators such as the NRA (and from next April the Environment Agency) have the power to demand answers to questions about polluting incidents. The Environment Act has recently increased the penalties for failing to provide such information.
I can testify to the value of these provisions in a recent water pollution case I was prosecuting, affecting some 20km of river and which resulted in a major fish kill. The power to demand information led to an industrial chemical manufacturer admitting responsibility and being successfully prosecuted.
If the European Court comes to a contrary decision to that of the Court of Appeal, the implications could be far wider than the fight against commercial fraud. The Environmental Agency and any right-minded citizen would hardly be likely to agree that polluters should be able to hide life-threatening mistakes or catastrophic pollution behind the right to silence.
Yours faithfully,
Ray Clarke
Solicitor
Nabarro Nathanson
Doncaster
28 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments