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 ENFORCEMENT DATABASE REMAINS OFFLINE

    hselogo1Access to HSE prosecutions and notices register mysteriously unavailable

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2019

    POOR LIFT MAINTENANCE CLAIMED LIFE OF CHILD

    Affordable housing business and contractor fined over £1.5m

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2019

    NEW CPA CRANE SAFETY GUIDANCE ISSUED

    Guide covers use of mobile lifting appliances beside railways

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2019

    RIBA CONDEMNS RISKIER PROCUREMENT OUTCOMES

    Holistic focus on safety is required and not just cost cutting

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th January 2019

    DIRECTOR JAILED OVER PAINT STRIPPER ILLEGAL SALE

    Banned and restricted chemicals sold contrary to legal requirements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th January 2019

    CLIENT FAILED TO PROCURE ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Demolition work released large quantities of asbestos fibres

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd January 2019

    LIVE WORKING IGNITED CLOTHES OF ELECTRICIAN

    Spanner came into contact with live terminal causing life-changing burns

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    WORKMEN FELL FROM ‘BIN’ ATTACHED TO EXCAVATOR

    Premature removal of scissor lift prompted unsafe system of work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    MANY SITES FAIL HSE HEALTH RISK CONTROL TEST

    HSE Construction site ‘blitz’ finds breaches at 43% of site visits

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    MAKESHIFT FALL ARREST SYSTEM CAUGHT ON CAMERA

    Contactors fined for using harness not attached to suitable anchor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    HYDRAULIC RAM SEVERED HAND OF WORKMAN

    Major contractor failed to follow own policies and procedures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    ALL WORK AREAS NOT INCLUDED IN ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Company fined after asbestos containing materials were released

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    POSITIVE STORY ON FRAGILE SURFACE HAZARDS

    Major roofing contractor testifies to working from below roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    LEISURE CENTRE USER FELL ILL AFTER SHOWER USE

    Legionella risk assessment and control measures found wanting

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    STONE CUTTING MACHINE GUARDS FAILED HSE TEST

    Precautions taken following HSE enforcement fell into disuse

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    ROOFWORK CREATED CARBON MONOXIDE RISK

    Falling rubble damaged and blocked home chimney flue

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    HSE SAFETY ALERT: TOWER CRANE BRAKES

    Collapse of tower crane jib in high winds prompts HSE warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    VISITING ENGINEER CRUSHED BY SCAFFOLD TUBES

    Principal contractor “signed off” contractor storage arrangements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    CONCRETE EJECTED BY PUMPING UNIT CLAIMED LIFE

    Company and director failed to train and supervise pumping operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th December 2018

    REFRESHED GUIDANCE ON FITNESS TO OPERATE PLANT

    Construction plant medical fitness Good Practice Guide

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR & LUL USED UNSAFE SYSTEM

    Work method to eliminate moving vehicle hazard not adopted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    OVERTURNING LORRY CAUSED DEATH OF DRIVER

    Groundworks project stockpiling arrangements not properly managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    FORTH BRIDGE LIFTING OPERATION NOT PLANNED

    Major project PC failed to plan, supervise and carry out lift safely

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    DEVELOPER FAILED ON ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

    HSE inspection revealed refurb works without asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 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 […]