The case involved a nine week trial at Oxford Crown Court. Mr S Rogers' case (and other local scrap yards) was as a result of a covert investigation carried out by Thames Valley Police which, they say, was commenced to examine the processes at a number of local scrap yards in response to the increase of metal theft nationwide. The objective of the operation (Operation Tornado, later known as Operation Symphony) was to identify any criminal activity being committed in scrap metal yards with a particular focus on the handling of property which was known, believed or suspected to have been stolen.

Covert Deployments

TR Rogers's yard was raided on 29 May 2012 and Mr S Rogers (and others) were arrested and interviewed at Abingdon Police Station - none had a lawyer present and all answered all questions asked by Police. Mr S Rogers was re-interviewed and charged in November 2012. Forfeiture of cash proceedings were started by the police in June 2012 and these proceedings were later abandoned in February 2013 and all cash returned.

Mr S Roger's case involved a number of deliberate police misconducts and failings including the destruction of evidence (i.e.TR Rogers CCTV hard-drive), police abuses of power in seizing items from Mr S Rogers, manipulation of evidence, fraudulent cashing of a company cheque and subsequent to the verdict Entrapment.

In Mr S Rogers case it was heard that there was a self-controlling standalone police unit controlled by a Detective Inspector (DI) incentivised (by political and financial pressures) to prosecute a number of scrap yards using undercover operatives who will go to a yard and say/covertly record, "We have stolen property, please buy it from us." This evidence was to be recorded for use in the later prosecution and money gathering proceedings. This resulted in ten visits to the yard by Police who were provided with props (i.e. a waste carriers licence and cigarettes) to verify their identity and bona fides. This had mixed 'successes', some metal being bought and retained, some rejected and taken away. The 'conversation' and the circumstances in which it took place were strenuously denied during the trial. Simon Rogers (and others) were unfairly targeted and entrapped into committing an offence. It was heard, and not disputed, that TR Rogers yard did not appear as a target until 8 March 2012. The operation had started in the November of 2011. It transpired that four days before the first UCO visit to T R Rogers Yard, an employee of another yard who was a target of Operation Symphony, told the UCO that the Ali Cable would attract a better price at TR Rogers. It was this comment that led the UCOs to TR Rogers. We are of the opinion that the investigation contravened and should have been prohibited by European law.

It was accepted that the owners and employees (all of good character) were spectacularly co-operative with the police prior and during the operation. TR Rogers had high quality CCTV installed to record all aspects of the process at the yard and prove traceability. If all the police wanted to do was to stop any such crime there, all they had to do was ask. The Police, on numerous occasions, were told by Mr S Rogers that they had could have full access to all records, remote access to the yard's CCTV and, additionally, TR Rogers had historically helped Thames Valley Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in securing convictions (by use of their extremely detailed records). The end result of this covert operation brought about low value legitimate sales of admitted non-stolen metal, and no stolen property or concealing of stolen property was ever found (confirmed by the Prosecution in court on 8 March 2013) in the yard when it was searched by Police on 29 May 2012. Not only was it admitted that the metal that the UCOs tried to sell was not stolen, but it did not look like stolen metal nor did it have any of the identifying features that stolen scrap has.

It was the defence case that this operation came as a result of both political pressure (failings in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 (SDMA 1964) and the Government 'seen to be doing something' about rising metal theft), financial pressures (cuts in police funding as well as a hopeful prosecutions and confiscation Assets through Proceeds of Crime proceedings which the police 'get to keep'), public relation exercises (i.e. inviting the BBC and various local news groups to yard raids to film 'the police at work') and simply lazy policing (creating crime to solve it). Despite all of these failings, the trial continued and the defendants were exposed to risk of conviction in an unfair trial process which was incapable of catering for or remedying the defects of this 'joke' of an investigation and case against them. The defendants were prohibited from seeing the bulk of prosecution evidence due to court scare tactics (protecting the identity of undercover operatives despite the prosecution 'accidentally' serving images of them on three occasions) and nevertheless, were still expected to defend themselves regarding conversations they had with individuals they thought were legitimate contractors which occurred nearly over eighteen months before the start of the trial. The prosecution had exclusive control of all evidence in the hope that they could prejudice the mind of both the Learned Judge and the Jury.

Court Proceedings & Conviction

Mr S Rogers (and others) appeared before the Oxford Crown Court on 8 March 2013 at first for thirty-one counts of attempting to convert criminal property contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981) and sections 327(1) and 329(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). Additionally, the items brought to the yard by undercover operatives were in fact not stolen items and it was Mr S Rogers's case that he could legitimately purchase the majority of the items (which was proven in open court) and provide traceability of where the items came from. It was also heard and not disputed that TR Rogers were adhering to (and often going beyond) the requirements contained within the SDMA 1964, and this was confirmed in a large number of police feedback reports regarding non-covert visits made by a specific task force which had been visiting the yard since January 2012. These had detailed that there were no areas of concern and that TR Rogers was a legitimate business and was run impeccably. This, no doubt, was why the yard had not cropped during the intelligence gathering carried out by the police from November 2011 and 8 March 2012.

On 4 September 2013, the indictment for all defendants was amended by the prosecution and Mr Rogers now faced five counts against him in relation to attempting to conceal, disguise or convert criminal property contrary to section 1(1) of the CAA 1981 and s327(1) of the POCA 2002. It is important to note that s329(1)(a) offences (as above) were abandoned by the prosecution, as Mr S Rogers had a statutory defence in that he paid a proper price (as accepted by the Crown) for all items bought from undercover operatives. The trial commenced on 9 September 2013; it was proven in open court that the police had lied and perjured themselves and at one point a Juror had stated out loud that "it was obvious he is a liar" referring to one of the UCOs. It was shown that the police had falsified evidence and drip fed important evidence to defence solicitors and barristers in the hope that Mr S Rogers (and others) could not fully prepare their defence case.

Outcome

After a nine-week trial verdicts were returned by the Jury on 6 November 2013. Mr Simon Rogers was found not guilty in relation to four counts (as well as other defendants appearing on the indictment) and found guilty in relation to one count (the covert deployment on 25 May 2012 where £415.00 of lead was purchased which the company would make a 20% profit margin on (not Mr S Rogers as an individual)). Mr S Rogers was sentenced on 7 November 2013. During sentence, HHJ Pringle QC stated the following:

"I turn to you Simon Rogers. You are forty-two; you live a normal family life with your wife and two children. You have a university degree and have worked for many years in the yard and are noted as being a very hard worker. Having read about you, you are regarded as an extremely good person. I take into account that during this operation, there was no actual loss, there were no stolen goods and I also accept very much in your case that the damage done to the business is a great burden for you to bear. Having regard to these circumstances, I consider that in your case you are to be given a fine of £1,500.00 and a contribution toward prosecution costs of £1,500.00 along with a victim surcharge (which I am obliged by law to give) of £150.00. I shall give you six months to pay."

Additionally, the Learned Judge ordered that no Proceeds of Crime proceedings are to be pursued by the Crown (as there was obviously no benefit from the alleged 'criminal conduct') and no custodial sentences were being sought. This entire prosecution has resulted in a man of good character being found guilty of a low level crime he did not commit. The follow-on trial (R v Smith) which commenced on 6 November 2013 (regarding another local scrap yard) saw all charges being dropped against employees of Smith's scrapyard' and it was therefore evident that R v Simon Rogers and others was a 'prosecution practice case to see how far they could go and what they could get away with'.

The covert deployment carried out on 25 May 2012 perhaps shows the most blatant of police bad faith/tactics in order to get 'a result'. This particular deployment was recorded on TR Rogers CCTV which police deliberately destroyed and would have categorically assisted in Mr Rogers' defence and proven his innocence.

The costs for defending this case can never be recovered because of government cuts and recent changes in law – this in itself is a disgrace. In essence, this case was a significant waste of time and waste of money (both out of the taxpayer's purse and TR Rogers' own finances). This case has drastically affected the lives of genuinely good men and the running of a well-established, honest and successful business.

Click here for BBC news coverage and here for a report in the Oxford Mail.

Lawyers for Waste Management Fraud

If you are facing a similar investigation/prosecution, or if we can assist you with any of the issues raised within this article please contact us on 0207 387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.