Welcome back! In the previous post, we left off with a question: “What is a water pollutant?”. One of the options was cream, which will be the focus for today’s post. Before we explore why cream is a water pollutant, it is important to understand how law works.

Built upon a precedent

Akin to how peer-reviewed literature advances the boundaries of science, the lessons from prior case studies are drawn upon as precedence to further the practice of law and provide a benchmark for ruling. In legal terms, it is the principle of stare decisis which is Latin for “to stand by things decided” (Oyen, 2017). While there are drawbacks to the principle, having a precedent sets an expectation. This ensures that rulings made in court are fair across the board.

While Singapore’s written law is based on its constitution, the principle of stare decisis follows the common law. Common laws are previous decisions made by (higher) courts, and judges in lower courts and bounded by these past decisions. Although Singapore relies primarily on its written laws, the common law is an inherited feature based on the English judicial system, a legacy of her English colonial past.

With the common law in mind, we will be able to reference a case of water pollution in the United Kingdom to better understand what a water pollutant is!

Express Ltd. v The Environmental Agency

Express Ltd. caused a discharge of cream into Hewell Brook and was liable under section 85(1) of the Water Resources Act (“WRA”) 1991. Section 85(1) of the WRA,

which prohibits the disposal of “…any poisonous noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters” (NRA, 1991),

is similar to EPMA section 15(1). Since cream is neither poisonous noxious nor solid, it became a point of contention on whether cream was a polluting matter.

Similarly, the phrase “polluting matter” is not defined under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (“EPMA”) Section 2, typically the interpretation section of Singapore’s statutes.

While Express Ltd. was later found guilty as cream was discovered to have a potential for harm, the counsel determined that harm is not a necessary condition to “pollute”. The mere tainting of water is sufficient. This meant that Express Ltd. was guilty regardless. For readers interested in this case, more can be read here.

 

“Polluting Matter”

The WRA, like the EPMA, does not define what “polluting matter” is. Hence, the judge used one of the general definitions of “pollute” under the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which define it as (Abbot, 2006):

“To make physically impure, foul or filthy; to dirty, stain, taint, befoul spec. to contaminate (the environment, atmosphere, etc) with harmful or objectionable substances.”

With the EPMA not defining what “polluting matter” is, a similar situation can occur in Singapore in the future. However, based on the precedent set by WRA, we can use the definition above to better understand water pollution laws. Armed with a better idea on how to interpret section 15(1) of the EPMA, we shall compare the it with our own definition of water pollution and  discuss if Singapore’s water pollution law is too strict, too lenient, or just right in our next post.

Let us hear your opinions down below!

Till next time!

Lee Yang

 

---

References

Abbot, C. (2006). Water Pollution and Acts of Third Parties: Water pollution—Water Resources Act 1991—Criminal liability—Act of landowner third party—Mens rea—Meaning of ‘polluting matter’Express Ltd (trading as Express Dairies Distribution) v Environment Agency. Journal of Environmental Law, 18(1), 119-133.

NRA. (1991). Water Resources Act. United Kingdom Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/57/contents.

Oyen, T. (2017, March 2017). Stare decisis. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis