Councillor's son fails in appeal to cut £50k fine

3:52pm Tuesday 20th May 2008

Comments (1)   Have your say »

The son of a Hounslow councillor ordered to pay £50,000 after being convicted of illegally dumping waste today failed in his appeal against his fine.

Tajinder Singh Dhaliwal, 38, of Larburnum Grove, Hounslow, was found guilty last July of allowing 1,000 tons of demolition and building waste, including soil, plastic, concrete and wood, to be dumped on land near Heston Services.

�There was some evidence of his means, but, having regard to the finding that he was entirely dishonest, it seems to us that the judge was perfectly entitled to find he had the means to pay a substantial fine."

Mr Justice Openshaw

Dhaliwal, son of Labour councillor Surgit Singh Dhaliwal, who represents Hounslow Heath ward, denied 16 charges of keeping or dumping the waste between 2004 and 2006.

But the director of New Bharat Skips was found guilty at Isleworth Crown Court of 10 of the charges, five personally and five relating to the company.

After anonymous tip-offs in October 2004, Environment Agency officers visited the site and found a huge quantity of rubbish and one of the company's lorries dumping the contents of a skip.

Dhaliwal was told there should be no storage, disposing or treatment of waste on the site unless he had a valid licence.

Two months later officers again witnessed a truck dumping waste at the site.

Following his convictions, the trial judge described Dhaliwal as a "thoroughly dishonest person" and imposed the £50,000 penalty against Dhaliwal.

Dhaliwal's lawyers challenged the £25,000 fine and costs, arguing that the sentencing judge had not taken sufficient account of his means to pay or the fact he had been acquitted of some charges.

But the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Mr Justice Openshaw, sitting with Lord Justice Moses and Sir Richard Curtis, said: "There was some evidence of his means, but, having regard to the finding that he was entirely dishonest, it seems to us that the judge was perfectly entitled to find he had the means to pay a substantial fine.

"We, therefore, see nothing objectionable in imposing fines of this magnitude."