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

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 21st FEB 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 21st February 2018

CLEANING ASBESTOS CEMENT ROOF CAUSED DANGER

High pressure jet washing spread asbestos fibres around premises

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 21st February 2018

HSE INSPECTOR GUIDE TO RISK ASSESSMENT

Regulator offers training course on all aspects of risk assessment

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 21st February 2018

PUZZLES HELP DELIVER HEALTH RISKS AWARENESS

Innovative puzzle products supplier extends the range of training aids

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 20th February 2018

NEW ISO 45001 MANAGEMENT STANDARD IMMINENT

Standard capable of replacing OHSAS 18001 with relative ease

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 20th February 2018

APPEAL COURT RULES ON LEGAL PRIVILEGE CASE

Decision may prompt further caution during internal investigations

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 20th February 2018

TIPPER TRUCK STRUCK PEDESTRIAN ON SITE ROAD

Contractor fined £500,000 over poor traffic management arrangements

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 16th February 2018

FALLING SCAFFOLD CLIP STRUCK PASSER-BY

Firm failed to follow risk assessment and method statement

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 16th February 2018

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 14th FEB 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 16th February 2018

HOMES FIRM FINED £1/2M OVER DUMPER DEATH

Developer and contractor failed to manage people and plant interface

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 14th February 2018

SUPREME COURT RULES ON HSE ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

Post service evidence can be used to support HSE notice appeals

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 9th February 2018

SAFE INSTALLATION OF PRE-CAST FLOORING

Code of Practice for health and safety updated by industry federation

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 8th February 2018

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 8th FEB 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 8th February 2018

MANUAL HANDLING MUST INVOLVE ‘REAL RISK’

Court provides clarity on manual handling risk assessment rules

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th February 2018

SKIP LORRY DRIVER FATALLY INJURED BY LOADER

Hire company fined after lorry driver crushed between two vehicles

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 5th February 2018

PUBLIC RISK COSTS CONTRACTOR DEARLY

Principal Contractor failed to assess and supervise work

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 5th February 2018

TUBES FELL WHILST LIFTING OVER PERSONS BELOW

Lifting operations were not carried out in safe manner

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 2nd February 2018

‘DAREDEVIL’ SCAFFOLDER LANDS IN DOCK

Former HSE Inspector snaps dangerous working practices at 60 feet

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 2nd February 2018

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 1st FEB 2018

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 1st February 2018

DIDCOT FATAL COLLAPSE: INVESTIGATION UPDATE

Police and HSE still seeking to understand why boiler house collapsed

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 1st February 2018

SCAFFOLDER TRAINING REACHES NEW HEIGHTS

CISRS training card renewal by CPD embraced by scaffolders

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 30th January 2018

HSE SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION SECTOR HARM

Infographic provides insight into industry priority hazards

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 29th January 2018

FIRM FAILED TO IMPLEMENT AGREED CONTROLS

Risk assessment carried out but precautions not taken

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 29th January 2018

HSE MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS SUMMIT 2018

hselogo1Regulator focuses on MSDs in construction and others sectors

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 28th January 2018

LOAD FELL FROM MAGNET AND STRUCK WORKMAN

Firm failed to properly assess and revise crane safe working load

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 25th January 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 […]