Under the 1990 Environmental Protection Act, section 82 allows private parties to commence criminal proceedings when they encounter a statutory nuisance, yet doing so also obliges the claimant to serve as the prosecutor. Tenants, neighbours and other residents troubled by damp, mould, noise, smoke or odours have turned to this mechanism to obtain a response. The proceedings are seen as a way of leveraging action quickly and offer a route to a court hearing without necessarily relying upon statutory authorities or third parties to take any decisive action.
From Complainant to Prosecutor
Section 82 EPA proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act may initially seem like a simple way for individuals, especially those representing themselves, to extend a complaint process. They’ve encountered a problem, collected evidence, and seek court intervention to halt the perceived nuisance. However, a significant challenge arises for self-represented litigants, particularly when initiating such actions in the magistrates’ court: upon commencing a section 82 prosecution, they transition from being solely a complainant to becoming the prosecutor.
Prosecutors bear responsibilities to the court that significantly exceed those of parties in civil litigation. Among these, the duty of candour stands out as both key and often neglected. One of the fundamental principles of criminal proceedings is that prosecutors have duties to assist the court in reaching the correct outcome. While individual claimants seek specific outcomes, such as repairs, compensation, or a guilty verdict, they must set aside personal motives once they assume the prosecutor’s role. Their obligations to the court mirror those of a Crown Prosecutor. Experiencing issues like damp, mould, noise, or anti-social behaviour does not exempt them from providing the court with a fair and balanced presentation of the facts.
Understanding the Duty
At its simplest, candour means telling the court the whole story, not just the parts that help your case. If a tenant is prosecuting a landlord for damp, that may mean telling the court about any relevant mitigating factors. For example, the tenant might have failed to report the issue promptly or failed to follow agreed repair procedures. The duty requires the prosecutor to disclose information that could weaken their own case, even if it is not strictly required by disclosure rules. This ensures the court can make a fully informed decision based on all the available evidence.
