John Richard Jones KC

Call 1981
Silk 2002

"John is a tenacious, highly intelligent, accomplished silk who has many years of experience in defending complex and challenging cases. His exceptionally high levels of preparation, his attention to detail, his overall tactical awareness, and his advocacy skills are impressive."

The Legal 500 2024
Photo of John Richard Jones KC

Environmental Regulation

John is highly experienced in the defence of Environmental Agency prosecutions in matters such as air pollution and water pollution. He acts on behalf of individual and corporate clients.

John is recommended year after year in Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500.  John is consistently recognised for his expertise as a Leading Silk, in both Chambers and Partners UK & The Legal 500 Guide.

John is an incisive advocate, renowned for his formidable ability in the courtroom. He is equally at home with detailed cross examination as he is in ensuring the jury fully understands the issues that he is raising with complete clarity. He is a calm, yet persuasive presence who, through years of heavyweight, hard-hitting advocacy is widely respected by opponents, juries and judges alike.

John’s areas of expertise include:

  • Contaminated land
  • Water pollution
  • Waste disposal
  • Waste management licence regulation

Environmental Regulation Cases

Environment Agency v B. and B and P Limited – Prosecution by H.M Department for Environment and Rural Affairs for the alleged development and running of an illegal and unauthorised landfill site. Case was brought and prosecuted on the basis of the unlawful deposit of many thousands of tonnes of landfill with compromise to the water courses and aquifers. This analysis was found to be fatally flawed and the Departments calculations wholly excessive and based upon a flawed model and calculation. The case on this basis was withdrawn at the close of the Prosecution case. Confiscation applications against both the company and the directors in excess of £1.5 million were withdrawn. Attempts to pierce the corporate veil were abandoned. Modest financial penalties for neglect were imposed. Applications for director’s disqualification were dismissed.