Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic 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

    HSE CONSTRUCTION DUST CONTROL ‘BLITZ’ STARTS

    Regulator inspections will check health taken as seriously as safety

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th September 2018

    FLOOR CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM OF WORK UNSAFE

    Welder fell 3m from mezzanine area through purlin openings

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 20th September 2018

    WORKER SUFFERS FATAL BURNS IN OXYGEN RICH AREA

    Sparks from angle grinder ignited clothing of workman in confined space

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    RIBA PUBLISH DRAFT POST GRENFELL FIRE SAFETY PLAN

    Architects institute consults on ‘golden thread of fire safety information’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    MAJOR UK CONTRACTORS HIT BY MAJOR FINES

    Firms ordered to pay over £3m after foot trapped in rotating ‘screw’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 19th SEPT 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 19th September 2018

    DRIVER DIED TRAPPED BETWEEN TRAILER AND VEHICLE

    Firm fined £1.5 million over failure to assess coupling operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th September 2018

    ACTUAL SYSTEM OF WORK WAS OPPOSITE OF RAMS

    Workman fell 4m through fragile asbestos roof sheet

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th September 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FUNCTION MISUNDERSTOOD?

    Consultants claim CDM 2015 design risk management has ‘gone backwards’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th September 2018

    RISK ASSESSED PRECAUTIONS NOT IMPLEMENTED

    Action not paperwork essential to prevent fall during lifting operation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th September 2018

    CROSSRAIL PUBLISH BEST PRACTICE H&S GUIDES

    Sharing major project best practice can leave a lasting legacy

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    SCHOOL STAFF LACKED ASBESTOS AWARENESS TRAINING

    Council fined £200k over asbestos flue and gasket rope failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    INCIDENT: MEWP OVERTURN IN CITY CENTRE

    Images show aftermath of mobile elevating platform collapse

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th September 2018

    SAFETY ALERT: DEFECTIVE SCAFFOLD COUPLER

    National Access and Scaffolding Confederation issues warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    DEMOLISHING INTERNAL WALL REVEALED ASBESTOS

    Firm lacked survey and asbestos management plan for premises

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    NEW HEALTH AND SAFETY TEST FOR ARCHITECTS

    RIBA raise the bar for members on design risk management and ‘life safety’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    POWER BUSINESSES FAILED ON LIFTING OPERATION

    Panel fell on workman during turbine maintenance project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE FIRM COMMITS TO ZERO HARM

    Behaviours to deliver zero lost time injury incident rate by 2021

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    MANAGING TOWER CRANE FALLING OBJECT RISK

    CPA issues new technical information note

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    POST EXPLOSION ASBESTOS WORK WAS UNSAFE

    Asbestos cement panels removed and cut with power tools

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    FALL THROUGH UNFLOORED FACTORY ROOF SPACE

    Non-routine tasks require assessment and clear risk controls

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st August 2018

    SEVENTH LONDON CYCLIST DEATH DURING 2018

    Building products vehicle involved in death of Queens doctor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th August 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR FAILED TO SUPERVISE LIFT

    Errors whilst lifting pre-cast concrete blocks fined £600,000

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th August 2018

    FIRM FINED £400,000 OVER VIBRATING TOOLS RISK

    Hand-held orbital sanders, rivet guns, grinders and drills caused harm

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th August 2018

    OVERHEAD POWER AND EARTHING OF SCAFFOLDS

    NASC combines updates advice on scaffold electrical risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th August 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    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 […]