Turner Access Higher Safety Total Access
Total Access Ethentic Chipmunk Data
Chipmunk Data Turner Access Ethentic

DEATH AT WORK SENTENCING GUIDE PUBLISHED

Corporate manslaughter fines start at £500k and H&S at £100k

The Sentencing Guidelines Council has issue definitive guidelines on sentencing following work related deaths under Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety law.

This is the first offence guideline relating to the sentencing of organisations rather than individuals and concerns sentencing where the death of one or more persons has occurred.

All sentencing after 15th February 2010 affected

The Guideline applies to the sentencing of organisations, not individuals, on or after Monday, 15 February 2010. This is unlike the Health & Safety (Offences) Act 2008 which applied only to offences committed on or after a specified date.

Fines levels for Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety offences will start at £500k and £100k respectively. The identified aggravating and mitigating features are in line with those the Courts currently consider.

Level of fines for Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety offences

The Guideline anticipates a broad range of fines reflecting the range of seriousness involved and circumstances of the defendants.

Fines do not attempt to value a human life in money but are designed to punish the defendant and are therefore tailored not only to what it has done but also to its individual circumstances.

However, the Guidelines go on to say:

Corporate Manslaughter  – an “appropriate fine will seldom be less than £500,000 and may be measured in millions of pounds.”

Health and Safety  “the appropriate fine will seldom be less than £100,000 and may be measured in hundreds of thousands of pounds or more.

Factors likely to affect the seriousness of the offence

The Guideline applies only to corporate manslaughter and to those health and safety offences where the offence is shown to have been a significant cause of the death. By definition, the harm involved is therefore very serious. 

However, seriousness should ordinarily be assessed first by asking:

  1. How foreseeable was serious injury?
  2. How far short of the applicable standard did the defendant fall?
  3. How common is this kind of breach in this organisation?
  4. How widespread was the non-compliance?
  5. How far up the organisation does the breach go?

The factors likely to aggravate the offence (not exhaustive):

  • more than one death, or very grave personal injury in addition to death;
  • failure to heed warnings or advice from officials or employees etc;
  • failure to respond appropriately to ‘near misses’ arising in similar circumstances;
  • cost-cutting at the expense of safety;
  • deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences etc and;
  • injury to vulnerable persons.

The factors likely to afford mitigation:

  • prompt acceptance of responsibility;
  • high level of co-operation with the investigation, beyond that which will always be expected;
  • genuine efforts to remedy the defect;
  • good health and safety record and;
  • responsible attitude to health and safety, such as the commissioning of expert advice or the consultation of employees or others affected by the organisation’s activities.

Assessing financial consequences of the sentence

A fixed correlation between the fine and either turnover or profit is not appropriate. The guidelines suggest that in assessing the financial consequences of a fine, the court should consider (inter alia) the following factors:

Relevant factors:

  • the effect on the employment of the innocent;
  • whether the fine will have the effect of putting the defendant out of business will be relevant although in some bad cases this may be an acceptable consequence and;
  • the effect upon the provision of services to the public.

Factors not normally relevant:

  • effect upon shareholders or directors;
  • effect on prices;
  • liability to pay civil compensation and;
  • cost of meeting any remedial order.

Latest Construction Health and Safety News

FIRMS FINED £2M OVER FALLING PIPE FATALITY

Incorrect stacking of pipes triggered fall and crushing of workman

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 20th April 2018

DOMESTIC PROJECT PC HANDED JAIL TERM

Workman fell from unprotected roof edge on dormer extension

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 20th April 2018

MAJOR CONTRACTOR ERRED ON FRAGILE ROOF RISK

Firms fine £965,000 after painter fell through waiting room roof

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 19th April 2018

HSE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 19th APRIL 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 19th April 2018

STRUCTURAL SAFETY BODY LATEST NEWSLETTER

CROSS publishes reports and expert comment on a range of issues

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th April 2018

NEW BIM SPEC FOR SHARING H&S INFORMATION

Specification for sharing health and safety info during construction projects

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th April 2018

MANAGERS FORGED ASBESTOS DOCUMENTATION

Removal licence obtained using fake training and medical certificates

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th April 2018

FINE OVER INCORRECT AND MISLEADING SURVEY

Specialist asbestos company failed to detect AIB on demolition project

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th April 2018

IGNORING HSE ADVICE PENALISED BY LARGE FINE

Contractor fined over £50k for persistent WAH and welfare failings

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th April 2018

PRISON OVER BASEMENT EXCAVATION AND COLLAPSE

Building contractor jailed after house collapsed in Brighton

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th April 2018

DEFEATING POWER INTERLOCK CAUSED FLASHOVER

Systems for managing electrical safety found to be inadequate

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 17th April 2018

LADDER SAFETY FAILURES ATTRACT MASSIVE FINE

National window firm left workers to ‘own devices’

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 12th April 2018

FALLING MATERIAL STRUCK WORKMAN IN EXCAVATION

Risks of working in and near excavations highlighted by incident

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 4th April 2018

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 4th APRIL 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 4th April 2018

HOUSING ASSOCIATION FAILED ON VIBRATION RISK

Assessment, management and health surveillance all found wanting

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 3rd April 2018

OCCUPIER AND CONTRACTOR FINED OVER FALL

Employee assisting contractor fell through roof during re-roofing project

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 3rd April 2018

HSE FEARFUL OF GROWING ’BLUE TAPE’ BURDEN

hselogo1ISO 45001 could generate fresh business to business demands

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 3rd April 2018

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 21st MAR 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 28th March 2018

INCIDENTS: PASSER-BY STRUCK BY BRICKS

Pack of bricks appear to have fallen from crane

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 28th March 2018

HSE RECONSIDER HOW TO INFLUENCE SMALLER FIRMS

hselogo1Regulator advice and messages are failing to chime with the SME businesses

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 27th March 2018

DANGEROUS REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS CEMENT

Workers smashed asbestos sheets with crowbars whilst at risk of falling

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 27th March 2018

HSE LAUNCH CONIAN SHARING AND SUPPORT PLATFORM

hselogo1New HSE web community now open to the public

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 27th March 2018

FIRM FAILING ON HAVS SURVEILLANCE FINED £50,000

Door manufacturer failed to manage sanding and buffing tool vibration

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 27th March 2018

PRE-CAST FIRM FINED OVER FINGER AMPUTATION

Lack of guarding and training triggered table saw injury

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 26th March 2018

HSE STRIKE BEFORE A FALL ON SOLAR PANEL PROJECT

Director and company pay price for lack of fall prevention precautions

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 26th March 2018
Turner Access Chipmunk Data
Total Access Ethentic
Higher Safety Turner Access

7 Responses to “DEATH AT WORK SENTENCING GUIDE PUBLISHED”

  1. CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER PROSECUTION TRIAL DATE SET | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] greater insight into how the courts apply the relevant sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines on Corporate Manslaughter suggest that CMCH fines would be expected to start from £500,000 and […]

  2. UK COAL RECEIVE NEAR MINIMUM FINES AFTER FOUR DEATHS | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] Guideline applies to the sentencing of organisations on or after Monday, 15 February 2010. Fines do not […]

  3. SENTENCING IN HEALTH AND SAFETY PROSECUTIONS | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] point of sentencing to highlight all mitigating and aggravating factors identified in relevant sentencing guidelines. The Court should also be presented with sufficient information about defendant […]

  4. CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER OFFENCE PROMPTS RECORD FINE | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] the CMCH Act 2007 and must be paid in four installments ending in September 2015. However, the Sentencing Guidelines Council state a fine should “seldom be less than £500,000 and may be measured in […]

  5. CLIENT / PC AND CONTRACTOR ERRORS ENDED IN MEWP DEATH | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] Sentencing Guidelines concern sentencing following work related deaths under Corporate Manslaughter and Health and […]

  6. CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER CASE SENTENCED | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] fine is such cases is determined in accordance with The Sentencing Guidelines Council which anticipate a broad range of fines reflecting the range of seriousness involved and […]

  7. COURT OF APPEAL ON SENTENCING H&S CASES | PP Construction Safety News Desk Says:

    […] made clear in the Council Corporate Manslaughter & Health and Safety Offences Causing Death sentencing guidelines published in […]