Finance Business Partner

Ex-Southern Water boss charged with conspiracy to defraud over water tests. 22 Jul 2026, 15:46 The former chief executive of Southern Water has been charged with conspiracy to defraud authorities over allegations he was involved in a plan to manipulate water quality tests to avoid millions of pounds in penalties. Matthew Wright has been accused alongside three others of conspiring to defraud the Environment Agency (EA) and water regulator Ofwat. The EA previously asked a judge to issue a summons against Wright, as well as Philip Barker, Clive Massey and Mark Gregory, who also worked at the company, charging them with the offence. The summons was issued last year, but Wright then launched a legal challenge over the move, with his lawyers telling the High Court in June that the EA did not have the power to issue it and that it should be thrown out as a "nullity". On Wednesday, two senior judges dismissed Wright's claim, and ruled that restrictions previously preventing reporting of the legal challenge should be lifted. The case against Wright, 61, of Haslemere, Surrey, Barker, 58, of Chiltington, West Sussex, Massey, 65, of Brandhill, Shropshire, and Gregory, 64, of Southampton, were scheduled to be heard at Medway Magistrates' Court on 14 July. The four are accused of conspiring between 2012 and 2017 to "defraud persons performing public duties in respect of environmental and financial regulation" of Southern Water, including the EA and Ofwat, by "the implementation of artificial no-flow events at waste water treatment works". Southern Water has separately been charged with dozens of offences of failing to comply with or contravening an environmental permit condition between 2013 and 2017 at multiple wastewater treatment works. Three individuals have also been charged with failing to comply with or contravening an environmental permit condition. Terry Stephens, 68, of Waterlooville, Hampshire, is charged with one count, alleged to have taken place in 2015. David James, 60, of Worthing, West Sussex, is also charged with one count, alleged to have taken place in 2016. Mark Butler, 47, of Hassocks, West Sussex, is charged with eight counts, alleged to have taken place between 2015 and 2024. Treated effluent discharge from the works is tested under an "operator self-monitoring" (OSM) scheme introduced in 2009, which sees discharges tested annually in unannounced visits. The tests are carried out by sampling teams, which operate separately from teams that run the works. The results of the tests are shared with the EA and Ofwat and can lead to penalties if the works do not comply with the terms of their permits. If the discharge flow at the time of the test is insufficient to take a sample, this is not regarded as a fail, and no samples are taken for the rest of the testing period. Rules around OSM have been tightened in the past year, including that samples must be rescheduled in the event that the flow is insufficient, with the current Labour government pledging to end the practice. In his ruling issuing the summons against the four men last year, District Judge Stephen Leake said: "The agency alleges, in the present case, that there was a deliberate plan by officers of the company to manipulate the OSM regime by contriving operational circumstances so that there was no flow through the relevant site at times when it was believed that the site would, or might, fail the OSM test, in order to avoid the consequences of the true OSM result being provided to the agency and Ofwat." Lawyers for Wright told the High Court that the EA only has the power to bring private prosecutions for environmental offences, not those such as fraud or conspiracy. Barristers for the EA said that the body had a general power to bring private prosecutions, and alternatively that allegations of conspiracy to defraud were connected to its functions. Lord Justice Popplewell, sitting with Mr Justice Hilliard, ruled on Wednesday that the EA only being able to prosecute environmental offences would "produce unreasonable and anomalous results". He continued that the law "enables the EA to prosecute for any offence of any nature in circumstances in which such a prosecution is capable of being calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions". In the 48-page judgment, the senior judge continued that the charge against Wright involves "very serious allegations of criminal misconduct". He said: "What is alleged... involves carefully planned and extensive fraud and dishonesty at a high level within the company and on a large scale, including, for example, arranging for wastewater to be removed from facilities by tankers in order to create no flow results, with a view to covering up pollution and deceiving those whose function is to protect the public from such harm. "The EA says that by the company's own assessment, it avoided penalties of the order of £45m, and on the EA's assessment the figure is higher." Following the judgment, an EA spokesperson said: "We can confirm that we are taking criminal proceedings against Southern Water Services Limited and a number of former employees. "We take our responsibility to protect the environment very seriously and will always pursue and prosecute those alleged to have committed serious offending against the environment. "We welcome this important judgment." By Callum Parke and Tristan Kirk, Press Association

BREAKING NEWS: criminal proceedings opened against Southern Water. Data manipulation and corporate fraud allegations amidst criminal proceedings against Southern Water. The Environment Agency has commenced criminal proceedings against Southern Water and several former employees following a lengthy investigation into the company's wastewater monitoring arrangements. Four former employees, including former Chief Executive Officer Matthew Wright, face an allegation of conspiracy to defraud. Southern Water will separately face charges relating to alleged breaches of environmental permits, while three further individuals are accused of offences connected with permit compliance. These are allegations which have not yet been determined by a criminal court. However, the proceedings demonstrate how regulatory failures can develop into serious criminal investigations involving both a company and the individuals who worked within it. What is Southern Water accused of doing? The allegations concern Southern Water's Operator Self-Monitoring arrangements between January 2012 and December 2017. Operator Self-Monitoring requires water companies to take samples at wastewater treatment works and report the results to the Environment Agency. Rules are intended to ensure that samples are independent, accurate and taken without operational teams knowing exactly when testing will occur. The Environment Agency alleges that artificial "no-flow" events were implemented at certain treatment works. It is claimed that this was done to manipulate the compliance testing system and avoid samples being taken under conditions that might have produced failing results. The allegation is therefore not simply that inaccurate information was submitted accidentally. Prosecutors allege that a deliberate arrangement existed to interfere with a regulatory system and disadvantage both the Environment Agency and Ofwat. Why conspiracy to defraud is a serious criminal charge. Conspiracy to defraud is a common law offence carrying a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. In broad terms, the prosecution must establish that two or more people dishonestly agreed to prejudice another person or organisation through deception or dishonest conduct. These cases are often complicated because the alleged agreement may not be recorded in a single document or conversation. Prosecutors may attempt to prove it through emails, meeting records, internal reports, operational decisions, witness evidence and patterns of conduct over an extended period. A defendant does not necessarily need to have carried out every part of the alleged scheme personally. The prosecution may argue that an individual knowingly participated in, supported or helped implement the dishonest agreement. Directors and employees can face personal criminal liability. Working for a limited company does not automatically protect directors, managers or employees from prosecution. A company can face charges in its own right while individuals are prosecuted separately for their alleged personal involvement. Seniority alone does not establish guilt, but a person's responsibilities, knowledge and decision-making authority may become central to the investigation. Investigators may examine who approved a procedure, who received compliance reports, who raised concerns and whether management knew that information provided to regulators was potentially misleading. Employees who followed instructions may also come under scrutiny where prosecutors believe they understood the purpose or effect of what they were being asked to do. Environmental permit breaches can become criminal proceedings. Environmental regulation places significant responsibilities on organisations operating wastewater treatment facilities and other regulated sites. Permit breaches may concern unauthorised discharges, failures to monitor operations properly, inaccurate reporting or non-compliance with conditions imposed by the regulator. Although some regulatory issues are dealt with through warnings or civil enforcement, the Environment Agency can prosecute where it considers the alleged conduct sufficiently serious. The consequences may include substantial fines, reputational damage, restrictions on operations and further regulatory action. Individuals may also be prosecuted where legislation allows personal responsibility to be established. Why corporate investigations can take several years. The Environment Agency describes this as a complex inquiry involving evidence secured over many years. Long-running corporate investigations can generate an extensive volume of material, including emails, monitoring data, audit documents, technical reports and communications with regulators. Questions may arise about what particular employees knew at different times, whether data was genuinely inaccurate and whether operational decisions had legitimate explanations. Early legal advice is therefore important when a company or employee receives a request for documents, an interview invitation or notice of a regulatory investigation. Criminal defence advice for corporate fraud and environmental investigations. Anyone investigated for conspiracy to defraud, false reporting or an environmental offence should treat the matter seriously from the outset. Morton's Solicitors advise and represent individuals facing fraud investigations, interviews under caution and complex criminal proceedings. Morton's Solicitors Ltd can assist with examining documentary evidence, understanding the prosecution's allegations and preparing a clear response to questions from investigators. Where allegations concern decisions made within a company, it is also important for individuals to consider whether their interests differ from those of their employer or former employer. Separate legal representation may be necessary to ensure their personal position is properly protected. Regulatory data manipulation can have severe criminal consequences. The Southern Water proceedings illustrate that allegations concerning monitoring and compliance data are not merely administrative matters. Where regulators suspect deliberate manipulation, the investigation may lead to fraud charges, environmental prosecutions and personal criminal liability for those allegedly involved. For directors, managers and employees, early independent advice can be essential when dealing with a complex investigation capable of affecting liberty, employment, professional standing and reputation. How Morton's Solicitors Ltd can help. If you have any questions regarding arrests or enquiries relating to fraud of any kind - then don't hesitate to call Morton's Solicitors Ltd now on 0161 477 1121 or email Morton's Solicitors Ltd.

Ex-Southern Water boss charged with conspiracy to defraud over water tests. The summons was issued last year, but Matthew Wright then launched a legal challenge over the move. The former chief executive of Southern Water has been charged with conspiracy to defraud authorities over allegations (Gareth Fuller/PA) PA Archive 5 minutes ago The former chief executive of Southern Water has been charged with conspiracy to defraud authorities over allegations he was involved in a plan to manipulate water quality tests to avoid millions of pounds in penalties, it can now be reported. Matthew Wright has been accused alongside three others of conspiring to defraud the Environment Agency (EA) and water regulator Ofwat. The EA previously asked a judge to issue a summons against Wright, as well as Philip Barker, Clive Massey and Mark Gregory, who also worked at the company, charging them with the offence. The former chief executive of Southern Water has been accused of conspiring to defraud the Environment Agency (Alamy/PA) The summons was issued last year, but Wright then launched a legal challenge over the move, with his lawyers telling the High Court in June that the EA did not have the power to issue it and that it should be thrown out as a "nullity". On Wednesday, two senior judges dismissed Wright's claim, and ruled that restrictions previously preventing reporting of the legal challenge should be lifted. Stephen Shergold, Wright's solicitor, said following the ruling: "Mr Wright denies all wrongdoing and has co-operated fully with the Environment Agency's investigation." Separate court listings show that the case against 61-year-old Wright, of Haslemere, Surrey, Barker, 58, of Chiltington, West Sussex, 65-year-old Massey, of Brandhill, Shropshire, and 64-year-old Gregory, of Southampton, were scheduled to be heard at Medway Magistrates' Court on July 14. The four are accused of conspiring between 2012 and 2017 to "defraud persons performing public duties in respect of environmental and financial regulation" of Southern Water, including the EA and Ofwat, by "the implementation of artificial no-flow events at waste water treatment works". The court listings also show that Southern Water has separately been charged with dozens of offences of failing to comply with or contravening an environmental permit condition between 2013 and 2017 at multiple wastewater treatment works. Three individuals have also been charged with failing to comply with or contravening an environmental permit condition. Terry Stephens, 68, of Waterlooville, Hampshire, is charged with one count, alleged to have taken place in 2015. David James, 60, of Worthing, West Sussex, is also charged with one count, alleged to have taken place in 2016. Mark Butler, 47, of Hassocks, West Sussex, is charged with eight counts, alleged to have taken place between 2015 and 2024. Treated effluent discharge from the works is tested under an "operator self-monitoring" (OSM) scheme introduced in 2009, which sees discharges tested annually in unannounced visits. The tests are carried out by sampling teams, which operate separately from teams that run the works. The results of the tests are shared with the EA and water regulator Ofwat, and can lead to penalties if the works do not comply with the terms of their permits. If the discharge flow at the time of the test is insufficient to take a sample, this is not regarded as a fail, and no samples are taken for the rest of the testing period. Rules around OSM have been tightened in the past year, including that samples must be rescheduled in the event that the flow is insufficient, with the current Labour government pledging to end the practice. In his ruling issuing the summons against the four men last year, District Judge Stephen Leake said: "The agency alleges, in the present case, that there was a deliberate plan by officers of the company to manipulate the OSM regime by contriving operational circumstances so that there was no flow through the relevant site at times when it was believed that the site would, or might, fail the OSM test, in order to avoid the consequences of the true OSM result being provided to the agency and Ofwat." Four people have been accused of defrauding the Environment Agency (Yui Mok/PA) PA Archive But lawyers for Wright told the High Court that the EA only has the power to bring private prosecutions for environmental offences, not those such as fraud or conspiracy. Barristers for the EA said that the body had a general power to bring private prosecutions, and alternatively that allegations of conspiracy to defraud were connected to its functions. Massey, Gregory and Barker did not appear at the hearing in London and were not represented. Lord Justice Popplewell, sitting with Mr Justice Hilliard, ruled on Wednesday that the EA only being able to prosecute environmental offences would "produce unreasonable and anomalous results". He continued that the law "enables the EA to prosecute for any offence of any nature in circumstances in which such a prosecution is capable of being calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions". In the 48-page judgment, the senior judge continued that the charge against Wright involves "very serious allegations of criminal misconduct". He said: "What is alleged... involves carefully planned and extensive fraud and dishonesty at a high level within the company and on a large scale, including, for example, arranging for wastewater to be removed from facilities by tankers in order to create no flow results, with a view to covering up pollution and deceiving those whose function is to protect the public from such harm. "The EA says that by the company's own assessment, it avoided penalties of the order of £45 million, and on the EA's assessment the figure is higher." Following the judgment, an EA spokesperson said: "We can confirm that we are taking criminal proceedings against Southern Water Services Limited and a number of former employees. "We take our responsibility to protect the environment very seriously and will always pursue and prosecute those alleged to have committed serious offending against the environment. We welcome this important judgment." MORE ABOUT