A farmer was recently acquitted in a case where the dispute concerned a possible violation of rules and requirements for the design of a washing area on a farm.
The indictment alleged that the washing area for washing the sprayer, which is used to control weeds in the field, was not equipped with a sealed surface and drain, and that the filling point for filling water into the sprayer was not equipped with a non-return valve to prevent backflow.
The sprayer was secured against backflow
In the case, an expert statement was obtained which could prove that the farmer’s sprayer (a Scan Sprayer) was designed so that backflow could not occur when filling with water. This was due to an air gap on the sprayer, which was specifically intended to prevent backflow of herbicide residues and subsequent point pollution.
The sprayer was also designed so that it could be filled with herbicides and washed in the field after work was completed.
The sprayer was only tapped
At the law firm Sønderby Legal, which handled the case for the farmer, it is explained that when a sprayer is designed so that herbicides are not filled on the farm but in the field, and so that it can also be washed in the field, there is naturally no need for a washing area and therefore no requirement for a sealed surface on the site. In this case, the washing area has merely been a filling point for filling clean water for washing in the field.
– When a sprayer is designed so that there is an air gap to avoid backflow, there is also no requirement for a non-return valve at the filling point, explains Sønderby Legal.
Evidence led to dismissal
Lawyer Helle Ankerstjerne, Sønderby Legal, explains that punishment, according to the EU legal principle of legal certainty, must be predictable, which requires that the case is sufficiently clarified.
– There is therefore a fundamental problem with the protection of citizens’ legal rights when the authorities, as control bodies, send cases directly to the courts without carrying out a thorough investigation of the facts. In this case, it was obvious that the design of the sprayer should have been investigated, says Helle Ankerstjerne.
Dismissal of 96 out of 99 cases
The prosecution dropped the case before it came before a judge.
Out of a total of 99 cases that Sønderby Legal has had within the agricultural industry in just over two years, there has been acquittal in 96 of the cases. The aforementioned case is just one of the 96.
The case in brief
- The Danish Agricultural Agency paid a control visit to the farmer in 2018 and concluded that a non-return valve was missing at the filling point. In addition, there was a gravel base on the site, which they believed was a washing area and not a solid base, where the washing water could be drained away without seeping into the ground. Therefore, the Agency believed that both the filling point and the washing area were illegally equipped
- The case was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is the supervisory and enforcement authority
- The Environmental Protection Agency reported the case to the police, and the prosecution brought charges in October 2020, seeking a fine of DKK 15,000
- Sønderby Legal became involved in the case in August 2021 because the farmer felt unfairly treated as he believed that he was allowed to fill water without having a washing area, as long as he just spread the washing water on the field. There was uncertainty about the non-return valve
- After it could be proven that the design of the sprayer meant that there was neither a need for a non-return valve nor a washing area in accordance with the washing area regulations, the prosecution chose to drop the case in April 2022