• Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data

    SENTENCING IN HEALTH AND SAFETY PROSECUTIONS

    Appeal against sentence in Scotland highlights importance of submission detail 

    Solicitors Morton Fraser have highlighted the recent case of Scottish Sea Farms Ltd and Logan Inglis Ltd v Her Majesty’s Advocate. The two companies successfully appealed to the High Court of Justiciary to have fines of £600,000 and £40,000 reduced. The fines were reduced to £333,335 and £30,000 rspectively.

    This case shows that full submissions by prosecution and defence should be made at the 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 finances.

    The article is reporoduced in full below:

    Article

    In the recent case of Scottish Sea Farms Ltd and Logan Inglis Ltd v Her Majesty’s Advocate, two companies appealed to the High Court of Justiciary seeking to have fines (imposed as a result of health & safety breaches) reduced.

    In this case Scottish Sea Farms (SSF) owned a barge that was moored at one of their sea farms. Below deck there are several chambers, along with the electrical equipment for a hydraulic crane which runs on deck. A task was to be undertaken by two SSF employees and an engineer from Logan Inglis (LI). Two hatches allowing access to the chambers were opened. The employees entered and exited the first chamber without incident. On opening the second chamber there was a hissing sound. As a result it was decided to leave the chamber open for a while to vent before entering.

    As a result of the attempts to enter the second chamber two SSF employees collapsed and a third (attempting a rescue) also experienced difficulties. Tragically two of those employees died. The engineer employed by LI had also attempted to descend into the chamber but came back up very quickly when he began to feel dizzy and unwell.

    An investigation disclosed that the oxygen level in the chamber was 13% compared to the normal concentration in air of 20.9%. Loss of consciousness and death can result from concentrations below 16%. The effects of such a reduced oxygen level are extremely rapid and will generally come with no warning to alert the senses.

    The charge against SSF alleged that they failed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to health & safety and in particular failed to identify the presence of risk associated with confined spaces; that they failed to provide sufficient information, instruction and training in relation to working in confined spaces and that they failed to provide plant and a system of work to ensure the safety of employees entering confined spaces and the associated rescue procedures. As a result of the failures their employees entered the confined space – with fatal consequences.

    The charge against LI alleged that they failed to make a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in respect of the presence of confined spaces and failed to provide information, instruction and training. As a result their employee was exposed to a risk of death.

    Both companies plead guilty and at the hearing to assess the level of fine SSF argued in mitigation that they had a good health & safety record, they took health & safety seriously, they had for some time engaged a private company to assist them in meeting their obligations, that health & safety training was generally of a high standard, that they actively participated in health & safety forums within their trade and following the incident they had provided all employees with training never to enter a confined space.

    LI also relied in mitigation upon the instruction of an outside agency for advice. They explained that they had taken steps following the incident to put all field engineers through confined space training and withdrew from work involving confined spaces. LI also argued that they were less culpable than SSF. The charges made it clear that they were not to be held responsible for any of the deaths.

    Perhaps most interestingly LI put forward arguments that the Sheriff should take into account the adverse effects of the current economic climate that had caused a downturn in work. They explained that they were doing their best to avoid further redundancies having already reduced their staff by 25% despite having suffered a reduction of 35% in turnover.

    Based upon the submissions made in mitigation the Sheriff fined SSF £900,000 (reduced to £600,000 to reflect an early guilty plea) and LI were fined £60,000 (reduced to £40,000 for the same reason).

    Both companies appealed and argued that the sentences were excessive. In making its decision the appeal court provided a helpful review of the approach to sentencing in health & safety cases. The court reaffirmed that the decision in HMA v Munro sets out the relevant considerations as follows:

    1. “where death occurs as an consequence of the breach, that is an aggravating feature, multiple deaths being viewed even more seriously than single deaths.
    2. a breach with a view to profit is a serious aggravation.
    3. the degree of risk and extent of the danger and in particular whether this was an isolated incident or one continued over a period.
    4. mitigation will include (1) a prompt admission of responsibility; (2) steps taken to remedy deficiencies; and (3) a good safety record.
    5. the resources of the offender and the effect of a fine on its business are important. Any fine should reflect the means of the offender but could not be said to stand in any specific proportion to turnover or profit. The objective of the fine should be to achieve a safe environment for the public and bring that message home, not only to those who manage a corporate offender, but also to those who own it as shareholders.”

    The court also acknowledge that it is appropriate for the Scottish courts to look to the sentencing guidelines produced in England and Wales in respect of corporate manslaughter and health & safety offences causing death. The guidelines accord with the Munro case and set out the aggravating and mitigating factors to be taken into account.

    Aggravating factors include:

    • more than one death, or very grave personal injury in addition to death;
    • failure to heed warnings or advice;
    • cost-cutting at the expense of safety;
    • deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences; and
    • injury to vulnerable persons

    Mitigating factors include:

    • a prompt acceptance of responsibility;
    • a high level of co-operation with the investigation, beyond that which will always be expected;
    • genuine efforts to remedy the defect;
    • a good health and safety record;
    • a 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.

    The appeal court took the view that the first aggravating factor applied to SSF but none of the others did, that none of the aggravating factors applied to LI and all of the mitigating factors applied to both companies.

    The appeal court accepted that the Sheriff had not fully explained how he had applied the factors to this case and as a result it was open to them to review the fines.

    They started by pointing out that the breach to which SSF had plead guilty was a very serious one. The court acknowledged all of the mitigating factors and reduced the fine to £500,000. Taking into account the early guilty plea that resulted in a fine of £333,335 being payable.

    With regard to LI the court again took into account the mitigating factors and they accepted that the offence to which they had plead guilty was a less serious one.

    An interesting discussion followed about the financial standing of the company. The court had been advised about the consequences of a downturn in work and on the basis of that information the court was persuaded that whilst the original fine of £40,000 would not put the company out of work it would increase the risk of redundancies. The court confirmed that this is a relevant consideration when assessing the level of fine and with that (plus the mitigating factors) in mind the fine was reduced to £30,000 with £20,000 being payable as a result of the early guilty plea.

    This case reinforces the importance of making full submissions at the point of sentencing to highlight all mitigating factors and to draw specific attention to the absence of aggravating factors. Perhaps more importantly it demonstrates the need to present the court with sufficient information about the company finances to avoid fines being imposed at a level that might put a company at risk of going out of business and to prevent innocent employees from suffering as a result.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 13th JUNE 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 13th June 2018

    DIRECTOR FAILED COMPLY WITH HSE PROHIBITION

    Precautions not taken to prevent excavation collapse and falling

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th June 2018

    SCAFFOLD NOT TO INDUSTRY STANDARD OR DESIGN

    Specialist and contractor in court over unsafe work at height

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th June 2018

    ROAD WORKER RUN OVER BY ROAD ROLLER

    Reversing alarm not working and warning light not fitted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    CLIENT AND SURVEYOR FINED OVER ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey proved inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th June 2018

    FATALITY: ROAD WORKER DRAGGED ALONG ROAD

    Night shift worker loses life when struck by road sweeping vehicle

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    CDM PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS AVOID HSE ENFORCEMENT

    Regulator enforcement database reveals few notices involve CDM PDs

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd June 2018

    PROPERTY MANAGERS FINED WITH CONTRACTOR

    Defendants failed to check for asbestos during soffit replacement works

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    EXCAVATION CAUSED RETAINING WALL COLLAPSE

    Precautions not taken to secure stability of free-standing wall

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    OVERHEAD CABLE STRIKE FIRM FINED £500,000+

    Inadequate system caused risk of harm despite lack of worker injury

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 29th May 2018

    CDM 2015 PRINCIPAL DESIGNER FINED OVER FIRE RISK

    PD and PC failed to comply with CDM 2015 responsibilities

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    SENTENCING GUIDELINES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

    Lawyer argues guidelines undermine reduction in ‘regulatory burden’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd May 2018

    PANEL STRUCK WORKMAN DURING LIFTING OPERATION

    Third party contractor falls victim of poor lift planning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    DIRECTOR LED HAZARDOUS WORK AT HEIGHT

    Three occasions when work lacked suitable and sufficient precautions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RISK ASSESSED BUT CONTROLS FOUND WANTING

    Joiner fell through unprotected opening on roof of new building

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    RIBA CRITICAL OF HACKITT REVIEW FINAL REPORT

    High rise residential review dismissed as “major missed opportunity”

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 21st May 2018

    CONSTRUCTION SECTOR DEATHS: THE ‘BIG THREE’

    HSE in-year fatalities for 2017/18 may indicate upward trend

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th May 2018

    SCAFFOLDING SITE ACCIDENTS AT RECORD LOW

    NASC Annual Report reveals all time low in 2017 incidents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    DUMPER TRUCK HAND-BRAKE NOT MAINTAINED

    Workman injured when pinned against stack of concrete blocks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th May 2018

    SPARE POWER INTERLOCK KEY CAUSED DEATH

    Dangerous machinery safety precautions defeated for maintenance tasks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th May 2018

    COLLAPSED CAR PARK WAS UNDER REPAIR

    Rusted steel supports triggered collapse of fascia and floor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    DUMPER OVERTURN CAUSED FATAL INJURIES

    Precautions during spoil heap creation were inadequate

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    HARDWOOD DUST CONTROL NOT MAINTAINED

    Manufacturer failed to examine and test local extraction system

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    SCAFFOLD CONTRACTOR OVERLOOKED MAJOR HAZARD

    Well-known risk unidentified during scaffold erection project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th May 2018

    THREE FIRMS FINED £1/2M FOR FRAGILE RISK FAILURES

    Fall through rooflight hazard poorly planned and managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd May 2018
    Total Access Total Access Ethentic Ethentic
    Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data