Court rules on negligent / intentional breaches

[alex04w]

A case of great interest to anyone subject to a cross compliance penalty under either SFP or BPS.

In this case a former President of the Ulster Farmers Union was subject to cross compliance penalty for pollution of a river. The Department decided it was an intentional breach and levied a 55% penalty (£55,000). He appealed the decision saying it should be a negligent breach. If it was seen as negligent then the penalty would be 3% (£3,000).

The Stage One review confirmed the decision that it was an intentional breach. He appealed this. The Stage Two review before an independent panel decided it was negligent. However, the Department over-rode the independent panels view and confirmed the decision of intentional breach.

The case then proceeded to Judicial Review. The Court has impugned the decision as the Department did not correctly consider the issue of proving intention and incorrectly applied the idea of strict liability. The Court has ordered the Department to review the case again and make a new decision.

A copy of the Court's Judgment is attached to the News Release on the UFU website (link below).

Anyone who has been subject to a cross compliance breach where the decision was that it was intentional should read this Judgement. It appears that all previous cases may have to be reviewed again!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38895343

https://www.ufuni.org/news/judicial-review-supports-ufu-position

 

[Carnearny]

A fantastic result for the UFU. The judgment really shows the Department and the Permanent Secretary as incompetent and what is worse, shows them to be very much against farmers.

A real nice case for @Danllan to get his fine legal mind around.

 

[Goweresque]

This is a good example of why civil servants will fight to keep farm subsidies - the last thing they want is to have their private system of control over farmers taken away, and only have the law and the courts to fall back on. The courts may not agree with their evidence/conclusions, and will give the accused the ability to refute their evidence, and courts will also decide penalties, all of which is a long way removed from the current judge/jury/executioner role they enjoy today.

 

[Danllan]

A fantastic result for the UFU. The judgment really shows the Department and the Permanent Secretary as incompetent and what is worse, shows them to be very much against farmers.

A real nice case for @Danllan to get his fine legal mind around.

Wrong Jurisdiction for me, but the principal re-established under JR is an important one i.e. that those enforcing the rules have to play by them (where have we heard that before?). There is also a general principal for the rest of us to follow, that we may challenge a decision from the 'authorities'; in my opinion and my experience, not enough people do challenge 'decisions' that go against them - but, clearly, you shouldn't challenge a correct decision that was properly made, even if against you. This is something that an awful lot of 'authorities' rely upon...

 

[colhonk]

Wonder where the` Department` gets the money to spend on all these court costs? hhhmm, could it be