Former UFU president settles legal case
- Published
The pollution was traced back to a diverter on Mr Marshall's farm
The Department of Agriculture has settled with former Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) president Ian Marshall in a dispute over a pollution incident.
Mr Marshall will get back the £46,000 deducted from his farm subsidy as penalty.
This was the second judicial review taken against the department and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) on the issue.
Mr Marshall challenged the department in the High Court.
The first was after the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) ruled Mr Marshall had deliberately polluted the Mowhan River, close to his farm in County Armagh.
'Accidental pollution'
The Department said that 500m of the river had been affected by silage effluent in December 2011.
Mr Marshall accepted that the pollution had come from his farm, but said that it was not intentional.
Deliberate pollution carries a significantly higher fine than accidental incidents.
A stretch of the Mowhan River was affected, officials said
The higher fine was applied in Mr Marshall's case and £55,000 of his subsidy payments were withheld.
He appealed the fine to an independent panel, who found the polluting incident to have been negligent rather than deliberate.
However, a senior DAERA official enforced the original fine.
'Victory for farmers'
The UFU said Mr Marshall will now receive a £46,000 payment adjustment for 2012 and 2013. The original pollution penalty has been reduced to £3,600.
DAERA has also agreed to pay "reasonable costs" to the UFU, who said it provided just under £130,000 of financial support in legal costs for the second case.
Mr Marshall said he was glad the issue had been resolved and questioned the amount of public money spent on the case.
A farm inspection in January 2012 found the diverter was apparently set incorrectly with effluent running to the river
UFU president Ivor Ferguson said the settlement was a "victory" for farmers.
"For us, it is a matter of principle. Our role is to defend our members against unfairness and in seeking and supporting these judicial reviews we aimed to protect the wider industry from harsh treatment for minor mistakes," he said.
DAERA said it had consented to its original finding being quashed and replaced with a finding of negligent not intentional pollution.
- Published7 February 2017