Summary of Corporate Manslaughter cases - April 2017
- Created: 2015-09-15T11:03:50+01:00
- Last Updated: 2017-09-04T11:17:52+01:00
Corporate Manslaughter cases
(as at 8 April 2017)
Guide to abbreviations:
CM = CM under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
HSE = Health and Safety Executive.
HSWA 1974 = The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
P = Prosecution
Summary
- 25 companies convicted
- 2 acquittals (PS & JE Ward, MNS Mining)
- 1 dismissal of charge by judge as no case to answer (Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust)
- 2 cases where charges brought but company pleaded guilty to health and safety charge and CM charge left to lie on file.
- No remedial orders/compensation orders
- Publicity orders made in less than a third of the cases (7/24 sentenced companies to date]) although cases generally attract media attention anyway.
- Director disqualification in only 5 of the 25 convictions
- Majority of cases have involved the deaths of employees (only 4 of the prosecutions to date related to non-workplace deaths).
- Charges have tended to relate to single instances of death as opposed to national disaster type incidents with multiple deaths. Only three prosecutions have involved multiple counts. The highest number of deaths prosecuted was in MNS Mining (4 deaths) but this resulted in an acquittal.
- All the organisations charged to date have been companies except for one case involving an NHS Trust which was acquitted.
- The charges have all related to one-off incidents which led to death (as opposed to industrial diseases)
Trends from the cases
- Guilty pleas in approx. 2/3rds of the cases involving conviction (16/25) probably due to possibility of reduced fine/individual charges being dropped.
- The prosecutions have been of micro, small to medium companies save for the prosecution of one large company – CAV Aerospace
- It is rare for a director/manager to be simultaneously convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. This has happened in only 2 cases (Sherwood Rise and Bilston Skips) i.e. less than one in ten chance of director being convicted of manslaughter if the company is found guilty. Gross negligence manslaughter charges issued in many more cases (13/25) but not pursued.
- A director has been convicted of a health and safety offence in 10/25 cases
- If a company is charged with corporate manslaughter it is usually also charged with a health and safety offence (18/25).
- A company has been convicted of both manslaughter and a health and safety offence in just under half the cases (12/25) but charged with a health and safety offence in addition to a CM charge in 18/25.
Case/citation(s)/ relevant links
|
Type/size of organisation |
Facts
|
Charges against organisation |
Guilty? |
Trial or Plea? |
Fine? |
Costs? |
Publicity order/remedial order/compensation order? |
Proceedings brought against individual(s)?
Disqualification? |
Conviction no. |
||||||||||||||
Act comes into force 6 April, 2008 February 2010 Original Sentencing Guidelines issued |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2011
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
R v Cotswold Geotechnical (Holdings) Ltd
[2011] All ER (D) May 100
[2011] EWCA Crim 1337
Winchester Crown Court (15 February 2011) /
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (May 2011)
Health and Safety Bulletin 397 p.1(Lexis Nexis)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/107_11/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/107_11/; [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26;
|
Company
Small, only 8 employees and a sole director
Turned over around £300,000 in 2007.
Company has since been dissolved (2014) |
An employee geologist was killed when a pit collapsed on him whilst he was taking soil samples on 5 September 2008.
The jury heard that the walls of the trial pit were not supported and soil collapsed into the trial pit, burying and asphyxiating the employee
Sole director on site shortly before the accident
Prosecution alleged that Cotswold had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the employee/failed to follow health and safety guidance etc.
There had been an earlier incident when the company failed to heed advice and guidance given by the Health and Safety Executive about the danger of unsupported pits. |
1. CM
2. Breach of the general duty under s.2(1) of the HSWA 1974 for failing to look after the health and safety of its employee. HSWA charge was not pursued by P leaving only CM charge.
|
Guilty of CM
|
Trial (3 week trial) |
Yes. £385,000 payable over a period of 10 years at £38,500 per annum (reported as approx. 116% of turnover but CA case suggests 250% of turnover. Vg comment: turnover appears to have fallen after death accounting for the conflicting reports)
The company was not given a larger fine, and was given time to pay over 10 years, given its poor financial state to avoid pushing it into insolvency
However, the fine, coupled with the legal expenses, ultimately resulted in the company becoming insolvent.
The company sougtht leave to appeal the sentence but this was rejected. Case confirmed a fine which had the effect of putting a company out of business might be an acceptable consequence of a conviction for corporate manslaughter.
Interestingly, the company tried to argue that a trial against it for CM should not proceed given that its sole director was too ill to give evidence. However, this argument failed on the basis that PE had given detailed statements at the time of the incident and appropriate directions were given to the jury about the disadvantages faced by the company through the inability for medical reasons of Mr Eaton to give his evidence live.
Leave to appeal the conviction was also refused. |
No prosecution costs ordered because of poor financial state of company.
|
No (provisions on publicity orders in force but did not apply to an offence committed before 15 February 2010).
Arguably, a publicity order in this case would have been superfluous. Cotswold’s prosecution and sentencing were widely reported, not just in the health and safety press, but also at national level.
The prosecution raised the possibility of making a remedial order but this was rejected by the judge who thought it unnecessary given actions taken by the HSE. |
The company’s sole director (Peter Eaton) was also personally charged with the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence and with an offence under section 37 of the HSWA 1974 (consent or connivance by him to the company's failure to discharge its statutory duty under the 1974 Act, or causing the breach of that duty by his own neglect.)
The charges against the director personally were stayed due to his ill-health (terminal illness)
No disqualification
|
1 |
||||||||||||||
2012
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
R v JMW Farms Limited (2012)
Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland v JMW Farms Ltd Unreported May 8, 2012 (Crown Ct (Belfast))
Not fully reported www.courtsni.gov.uk/en- https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20R%20v%20J%20M%20W%20Farm%20Limited/j_sj_R-v-JMW-Farm-Limited_080512.pdf (accessed 6 April 2017)
Links:
Health and Safety Bulletin 410 p.6 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company
Small company without complex layers of management (although turnover 4 x that of Cotswold) – company director was present at the time of the accident and was operating the fork lift truck. Circa 60 employees.
|
First N. Irish case and largest fine imposed in relation to health and safety offences (at that time at least).
Death in November 2010.
An employee, Mr Wilson ,was washing the inside of a large metal bin which was positioned on the forks of a forklift truck
He jumped onto the side of the bin which then toppled and fell to the ground with the bin falling on top of him resulting in his death.
The position of the forks on the replacement truck did not correspond with the position of the sleeves on the bin and therefore the bin was unstable.
The Court was told that this represented an “inherent and foreseeable danger” to anyone working in the area around the bin.
The Court was told that the company was aware of such a danger.
It had carried out a risk assessment but no assessment was made of the position of the forks of the replacement truck and the sleeves on the bin.
Director was driving the forklift truck at the time.
|
CM |
Guilty |
Pleaded guilty |
Fined £187,500 (reduced by 25% to reflect the guilty plea). The company was allowed 6 months to pay the fine and the costs of the prosecution
Note the fine was significantly less than in 1st case despite much higher turnover (30 September 2011 the company’s profits after taxation amounted to £1,379,737.00). Dividends were declared of £200,000.00 |
£13,000.00 plus 20% VAT) |
-
|
Gross negligence manslaughter was considered at an early point but later dropped prior to the trial, following a guilty plea on behalf of the company.[1] |
2
|
||||||||||||||
R. v Lion Steel Equipment Ltd Unreported July 20, 2012 (Crown Ct (Manchester))
Health and Safety Bulletin 412 p.20 (Lexis Nexis)
|
Company.
Medium sized company. Larger than previous 2 companies. Turnover of over around £10 million 2008-2011. Around 140 employees.
Arguably though still nothing like the size of organisation that were the real targets of the changes in the law. Also senior management test not clarified because of guilty plea. |
An employee died when he fell through the roof of an industrial unit on 29 May 2008.
The prosecution’s evidence against Lion Steel was made up of alleged failings in the company’s internal documentation. Unusually however, the prosecution relied heavily on correspondence with its Insurers, Insurance Brokers, Risk Mangers and Safety Consultants detailing health and safety concerns at the company over a period stretching back 6 years from the date of Mr Berry’s death. During cross examination, a director of the company’s Insurance Brokers admitted that the warnings given to companies in relation to health and safety weaknesses are often “hyped up” to encourage companies to give more emphasis to issues identified. Evidence only allowed in so far as it was relevant for determining a gross breach after the Act came into force.
|
CM
S. 2 HSWA 1974
Breach of work at Height Regulations 2005 and therefore an offence was alleged under s. 33 of the HSWA 1974.
Note the CM charge was severed from the other charges and the charges against the directors at a preparatory hearing to avoid confusion. The death had occurred only shortly after the introduction of the Act and the Act is not retrospective. This was different to the other offences and raised issues about what evidence could be put forward.
|
Guilty of CM
HSWA 1974 charge left to lie on file
|
Pleaded guilty to CM (part- way through trial).
N.B there was an earlier plea before trial but it was rejected by P because it was made on the basis that the charges against the directors be dropped and the P wished to pursue g them
|
The company was fined £480,000 (payable over 3 years)
20% reduction for guilty plea
Court imposed a lesser fine in light of Lion Steel's guilty plea and the possibility that a larger fine might imperil Lion Steel's business and the employment of its remaining 142 staff. It was also noted that though the company was in profit, it had substantial loans, the directors were not paying themselves extravagant salaries, and shareholders had not received a dividend for three years.
|
£84,000 in costs payable within 2 years.
The judge reduced the P's claimed costs of £140,000 to £84,00 noting that the time spent in preparati was excessive and some things had been unnecesaary. |
No publicity order or remedial order was sought by the P. (although note the provisions on publicity orders were in force but did not apply to an offence committed before 15 February 2010).
No compensation order was made. Judge commented that this should be dealt with through the civil courts. |
Three of the company’s directors were charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The judge ruled there was no case to answer in respect of two of the charges.
All three were also charged under section 37 HSWA. The judge rules there was no case to answer on one of the charges.
The judge was critical of the P pursuing some of the individual charges.
The remaining charges against the directors were dropped in return for Lion Steel pleading guilty to corporate manslaughter.
|
3
(2nd company to be charged, 3rd to actually be convicted) |
||||||||||||||
2013
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland v J Murray & Son Ltd Unreported October 2013 (Crown Ct (NI))
[2013] NICC 15 (transcript) (Lexis)
Health and Safety Bulletin 424 p.1 (Lexis Nexis)
|
Company
A small company that was loss making, having been unable to generate operating profits for the last four years. The accountant explained the company had been unable to meet its substantial short-term liabilities and total assets were estimated as £33,000. 16 employees |
Murray & Sons Ltd, a Northern Ireland company that owned an animal feed mixing plant
Charges were brought in relation to the death of an employee. Mr Porter was killed when he was pulled into an animal feed mixing machine on 28 February 2012.
Investigations had shown that the mixing machine had been operated for three years without safety guards. |
CM |
Guilty |
Pleaded guilty to CM |
Fined £100,00
The company was allowed to pay the fine by annual instalments of £20,000 in light of the company's financial situation.
|
£10,450 costson or before 1 June 2014. |
No publicity order or remedial order.
No compensation order was made. Judge commented that this should be dealt with through the civil courts. |
Gross negligence manslaughter proceedings against James Murray, the director and owner of the company, did not proceed in exchange for guilty plea of company |
4 |
||||||||||||||
R. v Prince's Sporting Club Ltd Unreported November 22, 2013 (Crown Ct (Southwark))
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/london_sports_club_sentenced_for_corporate_manslaughter/ (accessed 7 April 2017)
Health and Safety Bulletin 426 p.15 (Lexis Nexis)
|
Company
Small company without a complex management structure and with a director who had significant day-to-day involvement in the business. Has since closed down.
|
The charges relate to the death of an 11 year old girl who died from falling from a banana boat ride and being hit by the boat that had been towing it on 11 September 2010.
|
CM
S 3 HSWA 1974 (left to lie on the file in light of CM guilty plea)
|
Guilty of CM charge |
Pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter |
£134,579 within 28 days
Which amounted to all of its assets. N.B company had ceased trading at time of sentencing.
N.b. some reports indicate the fine was £34,579 with costs of £100,000. This is not what the CPS publicity indicates though. |
- (although note comment to left) |
Yes – first time a publicity order was made in a case.
Company had ceased trading so purpose of publicity order was presumably to serve as a warning to other businesses.[2] |
A charge against a director of the company under s 37 HSWA 1974 was discharged in light of company’s guilty plea
|
5 |
||||||||||||||
2014
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
R. v Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Ltd Unreported February 26, 2014 (Crown Ct (Winchester))
Health and Safety Bulletin 427 p.2 and 428 p.14 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company Small company with limited assets |
Company charged with corporate manslaughter in relation to the death of employee, Malcolm Hinton, in 2012 at Riddings Farm. Mr Hinton died from crush injuries after working on a repair underneath a road-sweeping truck.
|
CM
s 2 of the HSWA 1974 (not pursued in light of guilty pleas)
Offence under regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (not pursued in light of guilty pleas) |
Guilty of CM |
Pleaded guilty to CM (n.b in this case that did not result in a droping of all charges against director) |
Yes. Company fined £8,000 (an amount when taken with costs which reflected the £12,000 worth of assets that the company had).
Judge noted that if the if the company had a larger turnover, the fine would have been greater and closer to £1 million |
£4,000 |
Publicity order |
Company’s sole director charged with gross negligence manslaughter, an offence under s 2 of the HSWA 1974 and an offence under regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations The gross negligence manslaughter charge and the offence under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations were not pursued in light of guilty pleas The director pleaded guilty to the HSWA 1974 offence, was fined £183,000 plus £8,000 costs within 12 months (or face jail), and was disqualified as a director for five years.
|
6 |
||||||||||||||
R v Cavendish Masonry Limited 22 May 2014 http://2harecourt.newsweaver.com/regulatorycrimenewsletter/i89gsttc5ck Health and Safety Bulletin 435 p.7 (Lexis Nexis)
|
Company Small company – in effect a single hands on director |
Death of an employee who was crushed by the fall of a limestone block while building a wall on February 9, 2010.
|
CM
S. 2(1) HSWA 1974
|
Guilty of both offences |
Trial
(early guilty plea in respect of the HSWA offence) |
£150,000 payable within 5 years
(not clear from reporting if an element of the fine was in light of H&S offence)
A larger fine was not imposed as it was in the public interest to keep the company going |
£87,117. |
- |
- |
7 |
||||||||||||||
R. v PS & JE Ward Ltd Unreported June 6, 2014 (Crown Ct (Norwich))
(4th company to be charged) |
Company Small company with less than 50 employees |
The charges related to the death of an employee, in July 2010, from an electric shock caused when the metal hydraulic lift trailer he was towing touched an overhead power line. Reasons for acquittal may have included the fact that an investigation by Norfolk Police and the HSE found that the day before the incident, one of the company’s directors, Peter Ward, had taken the trailer to the field and performed the same task. There was no evidence Pieton (the employee killed) was following instructions from Ward when he repeated the task. He appears to have acted on his own initiative. The prosecution also alleged Pieton was not trained to work under power lines but during the trial it emerged he had attended a training course for forklift truck drivers that covered working under live cables. Did lack of individual charges make it harder to establish CM offence?[3]
|
CM
S. 2(1) HSWA 1974 |
Acquitted of CM.
Convicted of HSWA offence and fined £50,000 plus costs of £47,932
The first case of a company to be acquitted of CM charges brought under the Act.
|
Trial
(12 day trial) |
N/A (acquittal) |
N/A (acquittal) |
N/A (acquittal) |
- |
- |
||||||||||||||
R V MNS Mining Limited (2014)
19 June 2014
http://www.kennedyslaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Health%20and%20Safety/Kennedys%20-%20Defending%20corporate%20manslaughter.pdf (accessed 6 April 2017) |
Company
Small company. |
In January 2013 MNS Mining Limited was charged with four counts of corporate manslaughter in relation to the deaths of four employees. Small company.
4 miners died at a mine in the Swansea Valley on 15 September 2011 when the mine became flooded and four men died
The prosecution claimed that when the mine manager Malcolm Fyfield ordered a coal face to be blasted he had not adequately checked if there was a body of water in the old mine workings behind it. But he insisted he had done safety inspections of the area, including one on the day before the tragedy. Malcolm Fyfield, was down the mine at the time it became flooded. He apparently escaped after burrowing out through a tiny tunnel and was airlifted to hospital
Prosecution does not appear to have been able to convince the jury that Mr Fyfield failed to carry out the required safety check. Emphasises the fact the the Act has failed to move away from the focus on individual fault. The guilt of the company was inextricably linked to the guilt of the mine manager.
Did not answer questions about the interpretation of the senior management test because mine manager was clearly a senior manager.
|
4 counts of CM (first case to involve multiple deaths) |
Acquitted |
Trial
(3 months) |
N/A (acquittal) |
N/A (acquittal) |
N/A (acquittal) |
Malcolm Fyfield was charged with four counts of gross negligence manslaughter but was acquitted |
- |
||||||||||||||
R. v Sterecycle (Rotherham) Ltd Unreported November 7, 2014 (Crown Ct (Sheffield))
Health and Safety Bulletin 434 p.1 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company Small company, circa 50 employees. |
The company was charged with corporate manslaughter following the death of an employee in an explosion in January 2011. Systematic failings in health and safety were reportedly to blame. The company (now in administration) was found guilty at trial. |
CM |
Guilty |
Trial (month long) |
£500,000 (first fine at the level recommended by sentencing guidelines)
Company was in administration at the time of the prosecution and was not represented at the trial. |
- |
- |
Three senior members of staff were charged with offences under s. 7 HSWA 1974 not pursued by prosecution. |
8 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v A. Diamond & Son (Timber) Ltd Unreported February 3, 2015 (Crown Ct (NI))
Pleaded guilty 17 December 2014 Sentenced in January 2016 |
Company Family run business with 50 employees |
The company had pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter in connection with the death of an employee in a saw mill on 27 September 2012. |
CM |
Guilty |
Pleaded guilty |
£75,000 payable over 5 years.
Judge took into account the firm’s recent profit and loss figures and the fact that it had debt in excess of £1.4 million. |
£15,832 |
- |
- |
9 |
||||||||||||||
2015
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
R. v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd Unreported January 12, 2015 (Crown Ct (Liverpool))
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/pyranha_mouldings_ltd/
Health and Safety Bulletin 438 p.2 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company 90-100 employees |
The company is a canoe and kayak manufacturer and the charge arose from the death of an employee in an industrial oven on 23 December 2010. There had been no risk assessments and staff had not received suitable training on how to use the new ovens and there were no written instructions on cleaning and maintenance.
|
CM
2(1) of the HSWA 1974
Failing to ensure the safety of an article designed, manufactured and supplied for use at work pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the HSWA 1974 |
Guilty of all charges |
Trial (5 weeks) |
£200,000
|
Costs against the two defendants jointly in the total sum of £90,000.
|
- |
Offences under the HSWA 1974 were dropped against the company's managing director and engineer, but the technical director who had designed the oven was convicted under s. 33 and s. 37 HSWA 1974 Act, fined £25,000 and given a nine month prison sentence, suspended for two years. |
10 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Peter Mawson Ltd Unreported February 3, 2015 (Crown Ct (Preston))
Health and Safety Bulletin 437 p.2 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company Small company – 12-18 staff |
The offences related to a 2011 incident in which an employee had fallen through a skylight and been killed when working on a roof.
|
CM
s.2(1) HSWA 1974
|
Guilty |
Guilty (pleaded guilty to CM) |
Yes. £200,000 for the corporate manslaughter offence, and £20,000 for a breach of health and safety legislation.
One third reduction for all sentences for guilty plea. |
£31,504.77 |
Yes. A publicity order was made |
The company owner who had pleaded guilty to s.37(1) of the HSW Act was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years and 200 hours of unpaid work.
The owner had originally been charged with gross negligence manslaughter, but this was replaced with the s.37(1) charge after his company agreed to plead guilty to corporate manslaughter. |
11 |
||||||||||||||
G&J Crothers Ltd
|
Company |
An employee died when he fell from a roof he was working on. |
CM
Health and safety offence
|
Not guilty of CM offence which was left to lie on file. Admitted health and safety offence. |
|
Fined £22,500 in relation to health and safety offence plus costs. |
N/A |
N/A |
- |
- |
||||||||||||||
Dieci Limited and Nicole Enterprises Limited (2015)
Unusually not reported in health and safety press.
Reported in normal press though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31858010 |
Company |
An employee was killed when a static caravan fell on him. Northern Irish case. |
CM
Health and safety charge of charge of breaching health and safety regulations by failing to properly assess risks posed to employees |
Guilty |
Nicole Enterpirses pleaded guilty to CM and health and safety charge.
Dieci Ltd, he pleaded not guilty to CM and to a further charge of breaching health and safety regulations by failing to properly assess risks posed to employees |
£100,000 |
- |
- |
Director acquitted of gross negligence manslaughter charge. |
12 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Huntley Mount Engineering Ltd unreported 14 July 2015 (Crown Ct (Manchester))
Young apprentice was victim of corporate manslaughter – 442 Health and Safety Bulletin 15 (Lexis Nexis)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/huntley_mount_engineering_ltd/ (accessed 7 April 2017) |
Company Small company, the 2 most senior managers played a clear role in the offence. It employed approx. 6 young workers
|
A 16 year old employee (apprentice) dragged into steel cutting machine when his overalls became caught on 8 January 2013 . The court hears there was no safety regime at the engineering company. Staff were left untrained and unsupervised and safety guards had been removed from machinery.
|
CM
Health and Safety etc. Act 1974 ss.2(1) and 7 |
Guilty |
Pleaded Guilty to |
£150,000 for CM offence payable over 6 years. 65.4% of turnover. Company does not appear to have been convicted of H&S offence, possibly because of guilty plea in relation to CM.
Lime People Training Solutions Ltd. (the agency involved in arranging the apprenticeship) was found guilty of an offence under s.3(1) of the HSWA 1974 after a three day trial and fined £75,000 and £25,000 in costs for putting apprentice into a dangerous work environment.
|
- |
- |
The company's sole director was charged with s.37(1) of the HSW Act 1974 and pleaded guilty. He received an immediate custodial sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment and was disqualified from being a company director for 10 years.
First time since the Act was introduced that an individual has actually gone to prison on sentencing. A supervisor was charged with an offence under s.7(a) of the HSWA 1974 was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work and given a £3,000 fine
Both individuals appear to have originally been charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
|
13 |
||||||||||||||
R. v CAV Aerospace Ltd unreported 31 July 2015 (Central Crim Ct)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cav_aerospace_ltd_convicted_of_corporate_manslaughter/
442 Health and Safety Bulletin 9 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company The company prosecuted was the parent company, rather than the subsidiary company whose premises the accident occurred on 26 January 2013. It is the largest company to be convicted of corporate manslaughter to date (460 employees and an annual turnover in excess of £73 million in 2013 Medium–large corporate defendant (over 500 employees) with a complex corporate structure
|
Involved the fatal crushing of an employee of a subsidiary company (warehouse operative) by stacks of aircraft-grade metal billets. CAV Aerospace is based in Consett, County Durham. The incident had occurred at Cambridge airport at a site operated by CAV Aerospace’s wholly owned subsidiary company, CAV Cambridge. The parent company acted as the guarantor for the subsidiary company including for the lease of the Cambridge site and had purchased the machinery at the site out of its own funds. The subsidiary company had no real control over what orders it received. See management diagram below (simplified). The sole director of CAV Cambridge (also a director of the parent company often ignored emails from the general manager of CAV Cambridge). The investigation found that managers at Cambridge had raised the unsafe situation with senior management at CAV Aerospace several times during the three years preceding the fatal incident. Further the Health and Safety Consultant had warned MCFarlane of the danger posed by the billets in strong terms. Some of the most obvious solutions were rejected on cost grounds and CAV Aerospace did not appear to agree it had a duty of care to the employees of CAV Cambridge.
|
CM (s.3(1) and s. 33(1) of the HSWA 1974 (because the risk was to employees of its subsidiary company, not its own employees)
|
Guilty |
Trial |
The firm was fined £600,000 (CM) and £400,000 for H&S offences payable concurrently within 28 days.
Judge ultimately decided not to consider cost cutting an aggravating factor (he decided the evidence was neutral). The judge held that the factors that most aggravated the offence were the lengthy duration of the failures, the level of the failures and the failures to heed warnings. The judge considered that there were mitigating factors (cooperation with the investigation, remedial action, payments to the deceased’s family (over and above any insurance pay out, a good safety record |
£125,000 |
No publicity or remedial order but the judge did not give any reasons. |
- |
14 |
||||||||||||||
Owen McFarlane (sole director of CAV Cambridge/CEO of parent company, CAV Aerospace)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Linley Developments Ltd unreported 24 September 2015 (Crown Ct (St Albans))
444 Health and Safety Bulletin 9 |
Company Very small building firm. |
|
CM
CPS FOI request response suggests H&S charges were also brought against the company but the company only appears to have been guilty of the CM offence. [4] |
Guilty |
Pleaded guilty to CM charge |
The company was fined £200,000 (payable over [5] years)
|
£25,000 |
Yes. Publicity order |
Managing Director was fined £25,000 and made to pay costs of £7,500 and project manager ordered to pay costs of £5,000 relating to breach of regulations 28 and 31 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Suspended 6 month prison sentences each. Gross negligence manslaughter charges against the directors were dropped after they pleaded guilty to Construction Regulations breaches. The judge had considered disqualifying one of the directors but said he did not believe it was “necessary” to do so.
|
15 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Kings Scaffolding Limited unreported 12 October 2015 (Crown Ct (Liverpool))
http://www.ppconstructionsafety.com/newsdesk/2015/10/13/corporate-manslaughter-firm-fined-300000/ |
Company Doesn’t appear to be a particularly large company. |
Employee died in 2012 after falling while working on the roof of the Kings Scaffolding Netherley headquarters on 13 September 2012. Company failed to heed health and safety warnings. |
CM |
Guilty |
Pleaded guilty |
£300,000 (payable over 10 years). Judge said in imposing the £300,000 fine he had to balance the need to punish the company against the risk of punishing innocent employees who would lose their jobs if the company went out of business |
£29,120 |
- |
- |
16
|
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Baldwins Crane Hire Ltd unreported December 2015 (Crown Ct (Preston))
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/corporate_manslaughter_charge_for_death_of_crane_driver/
446 Health and Safety Bulletin 19 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company One of the larger companies to be convicted. 181 members of staff and a turnover in excess of £22 million during the year to 31 March 2015. Still no real exploration of senior management test though. Clear senior management failings. |
Employee killed when the brakes on the crane he was driving failed on 15 August 2011. The company had failed to ensure it ensure its crane fleet was effectively serviced and maintained. |
CM
S 2 and 3 HSWA 1974 |
Guilty |
Trial
(month long) |
£700, 000.
The judge did not impose a separate penalty for the HSWA 1974 Act convictions. |
£200,000
Ordered to pay all CPS costs and half of the Health and Safety Executive's costs |
Yes – publicity order |
- |
17 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Cheshire Gates & Automation Ltd unreported 17 November 2015 (Crown Ct (Manchester))
446 Health and Safety Bulletin 19 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company Very small company |
Six year old girl became trapped in electronic gate outside her home on 28 June 2010. Safety measures had not been put in place. Sole director was personally involved in the installation of the gate together with an employee and had effectively overridden a safety programme that would have prevented the accident. They had not read the instruction manuals. |
CM |
Guilty |
Pleaded guilty |
£50,000. Judge David Stockdale QC allowed that the fine be paid in instalments of £8,000 per year and also made. |
No |
Yes – publicity order |
The director was charged with gross negligence manslaughter but offered no evidence and he was acquitted (presumably because the company pleaded guilty). |
18 |
||||||||||||||
2016
New Sentencing Guidelines became effective from 1 February 2016
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust unreported 28 January 2016
http://www.manslaughterandhealthcare.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/R-v.-Cornish-and-Maidstone-Tunbridge-Wells-Ruling-2016-1.pdf |
NHS Trust |
A woman died following a caesarean section on 9 October 2012 . After delivery the woman suffered a haemorrhage and needed surgery. The surgery appearer to go well but there were then complications and it was alleged that the treatment she had received had not been adequate to ensure her oxygen levels remained high enough. She suffered from severe bleeding and had a heart attack and died. The CPS argued that a finding of gross negligence against either of the doctors would have indicated that Trust had employed someone that it knew, or should have known, was not suitably qualified for the role. The judge acknowledged that the woman should not have died but held there were no systematic failures and that the woman’s statistics had not indicated that she needed immediate inturbation. |
|
Innocent. Charges dismissed as no case to answer (against company and one of the doctors). |
Judge held no case to answer after a fortnight of evidence. |
N/A (acquittal) |
N/A (acquittal) |
N/A (acquittal) |
A consultant anaesthetist was cleared of gross negligence manslaughter.
Following the acquittals the CPS said it had not decided whether or not to continue gross negligence manslaughter proceedings against a second anaesthetist who was not on trial because he had gone to Pakistan. |
- |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Sherwood Rise Ltd unreported February 2016
|
Company Micro company |
Sherwood Rise was a care home and an 86 year old woman died after she was found dehydrated, malnourished and with an untreated bed sore (she died after being removed from the home). Appalling failures by the home. During her 48 day stay in the home the lady had lost half her body weight and there was no care plan in place for her. All residents were ‘rescued’ from the care home. |
CM
HSWA 1974 (not pursued in light of guilty plea?) |
Guilty of CM |
Pleaded guilty |
£300,000
First sentenced under new guidelines. |
£41,500 |
- |
A director also admitted causing the death of an elderly resident through gross negligence manslaughter. He was also guilty of a HSWA 1974 offence.
First case under the Act in which the company and an individual have been guilty of manslaughter.
He was sentenced to 38 months imprisonment for manslaughter by gross negligence and disqualified for 8 years. The judge did not impose a separate penalty for the HSWA 1974 offence.
The manager of the care home (also a director) was convicted of a s.37(1) HSWA 1974 offence and sentenced to one year's imprisonment suspended for two years and disqualified as a director for five years. |
19 |
||||||||||||||
McGoldrick Enterprises Ltd (2016) |
Company |
Death of an elderly care home patient. Northern Irish case. |
CM
Health and safety offence. |
Not guilty of CM offence.
Pleaded guilty to health and safety breach and fined £18,279 including costs. |
- |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
- |
- |
||||||||||||||
R. v Monavon Construction Ltd unreported 27 June 2016 (Central Crim Ct)
|
Company Small company with annual turnover of around £500,000. |
Two members of the public had been drinking when they got into a fight and fell four metres (13ft) through the building site's perimeter hoarding on 19 October 2013. The hoarding was not sufficiently sturdy and was described as an accident waiting to happen. |
CM (two counts)
S3 HSWA 1974. |
Guilty |
Company pleaded guilty to all charges. |
£500,000 specifically for the CM charges
£50,000 in relation to the HSWA 1974 charge.
|
£23,653 to be paid within 6 months |
- |
- |
20 |
||||||||||||||
R. v Bilston Skips Ltd unreported 16 August 2016 (Crown Ct (Wolverhampton))
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/failed_company_and_its_manager_convicted/
452 Health and Safety Bulletin 2 (Lexis Nexis) |
Company Small company.
|
An employee died of head injuries on 28 June 2012 at Bilston Skips in Bilston Road after falling from a skip. Judge said owner allowed a woeful and inadequate system of work where there were significant failures to segregate workers from plant machinery. No record of any Health and Safety qualified individual on site.Director confirmed he had no health and safety training and there was no system in place to report or record any incidents. Company is now in liquidation. |
CM
s.2 HSWA 1974 |
Guilty (convicted in its absence) |
Trial (12 day trial) |
£600,000
Health and Safety Bulletin suggests that the judge imposed fines for the CM and H&S offence to run ‘concurrently’ which in effect means only one fine of £600,000 would be paid but notionally 2 x fines of £600,000 were imposed.[5]
Joint second highest of the 20 fines that have been imposed for corporate manslaughter, even though the offender was small in size and in liquidation.
Neither the CPS nor the HSE was aware of the harm culpability and severity categories into which the judge placed the offences under the Sentencing Council's guideline. |
- |
- |
The company’s manager (not a director) was also found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence and sentenced to two years in prison suspended for two years.
At the start of the trial he pleaded guilty to a s. 37 HSWA 1974 offence.
He was also directed to personally pay costs of £10,000 and disqualified from being a director of a company for ten years. |
21 |
||||||||||||||
2017
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v SR and RJ Brown unreported 16 March 2017 (Crown Ct (Manchester))
459 Health and Safety Bulletin 9-12.
|
Construction Company – micro. Directors played an active role in events leading to the death. 13 employees and four directors. Turnover below £2 million. |
An employee slipped and fell to his death while working as part of a team stripping metal sheets off the roof of a disused steel shed that was being dismantled. There was no proper risk assessment or method statement for the work and there was an absence of safeguards that would have prevented, or mitigated the effects of, a fall, including scaffolding, harnesses, netting or a fall restraint system. The conviction for perverting the course of justice relates to an attempt following the accident to ‘cover up’ the circumstances of the death and pretend that additional safety precautions were in place. A harness was brought to the site and placed to suggest the deceased had taken it off when this was a falsehood, |
SR & RJ Brown:
CM
Offences under the Work at Height Regulations 2005
s.2(1) and s.3(1) offences -not proceeded with in the light of the corporate manslaughter plea
MA Excavations:
s.3(1) of the HSWA Act
Reg. 13 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007).
|
Guilty |
Company pleaded guilty
(defendants collectively pleaded guilty to a total of 14 charges) |
£300,000 (reduced by 25% on account of the guilty plea). The offence was categorised as category A. the fine is within the category range (£270,000 - £800,000) but below the starting point £450,000.
No separate fine was imposed in respect of the Work at Height Regulations.
Another company, MA Excavations (the principal contractor), was fined £150,000 for health and safety offence. |
£15,833 |
Yes – publicity order imposed |
Two directors of SR and RJ Brown were imprisoned for health and safety offences ( (s.2(1), s . 3 and s. 37(1) HSWA.and for perverting the course of justice. They received prison sentences of 20 months each in total.
A director of the principal contractor was also sent to jail for 12 months for health and safety offences. (s.37(1) of the HSW Act)
The director of a third company received a 4 month prison term suspended for 2 years for his his involvement in perverting the course of justice.
Two gross negligence manslaughter charges were left to lie on file. |
22 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Koseoglu Metal works Ltd unreported 19 May 2017 (Crown Ct (Chelmsford))
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/company-directors-jailed-following-/
|
Two companies. Micro organisations.
Note though that Ozdil UK, which operates from the same address as Ozdil Investments and shared some of the same directors until disqualification and termination, made a pre-tax profit of £725,813 on a turnover of £21,920,332 in 2015. |
Ozdil Investments Ltd was the owner of a. warehouse which needed repairs. Both the HSE and Harlow District Council issued warnings to the company about the dangers involved in the repair work and specifically the need for safety measures such as netting to be put in place. Ozdil Investments engaged Koseoglu Metal Work (a friend’s company) to carry out the roofing work, rather than a competent contractor. Koseoglu Metalworks Ltd did not have had any experience of roofing work and its workers were not trained in carrying out the work involved. Advice and warnings were ignored and work was commenced without having appointed a CDM coordinator or safety netting to mitigate the risk to workers of falls from height. Ozdil Investments had received a prohibition notice relating to work at height on the same roof previously. The judge said the companies and their directors had not provided any risk assessments, paperwork, scaffolding, running lines, safety boards, harnesses and safety nets, even though they “had been told” to do so. Nor had they shown remorse at the time of Mr Valkov's death |
Ozdil Investments:
CM
S. 3(1) HSWA
Koseoglu Metal Work:
CM
S. 2(1) HSWA |
Both companies guilty of CM and health and safety offences
First case where two companies have simultaneously been convicted of CM |
Trial (4 weeks)
Note Ozdil denied charges whilst Koseoglu pleaded guilty to corportae manslaughter. |
Ozdil Investments: £500,000 for corporate manslaughter and £160,000 for s.3(1) of the HSW Act).
Koseoglu Metal Work: £300,000 for corporate manslaughter and £100,000 for(s.2(1) of the HSW Act).
Both offences were category A. The fines were within the category range (£270,000 to £800,000).Ozdil’s fine was above the starting point but Koseoglu’s fine was £50,000 below it. |
Ozdil - £53,115
Koseoglu Metal Work: £21,236 costs; |
No publicity order. |
Three directors charged with health and safety Act offences.
One was imprisoned for one year – s. 37 HSWA and disqualified as a director for 10 years. Denied offence.
One was imprisoned for 10 months – s. 37 HSWA and disqualified as a director. Denied offence.
One was imprisoned for 8 months – s. 37 HSWA and disqualified as a director for 10 years. Admitted offence. |
23 and 24 |
||||||||||||||
Health and Safety Executive v Martinisation (London) Ltd unreported 19 May 2017 (Central Crim Ct)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/firm-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-lo/ |
Consturction company |
In November 2014, two employees fell from a first floor balcony as they tried to hoist a sofa up from the pavement. The victims were not provided with a plan, method statement or risk assessment prior to the task being undertaken, thereby exposing them to the risk of serious harm. The expectation was for the workmen to use a rope to haul a sofa over a balustrade and into a first floor apartment. Advice from an experienced and reputable lifting company on how to carry out the process safely was ignored due to time and budgetary constraints. The building project was very overbudget. The company appears to have had a poor health and safety track record. |
CM (two counts)
2 health and safety offences |
Guilty of all charges |
Trial |
Sentencing to take place on 7 July 2017 |
TBC |
TBC |
Director charged with s. 33(1) amd 71(a) HSWA . Found guilty of all charges. |
25 |
||||||||||||||
Potential cases
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hamerton Zoo death |
|
Woman eaten by a lion on Monday 29th May 2017. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Grenfell tower fire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Crane collapse deaths
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40356335 |
|
Two deaths following a crane collapse in Crewe in June 2017. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
List of CM cases:
http://www.cqms-ltd.co.uk/news/landmark_corporate_manslaughter_case.html
http://www.aosh.org.uk/uploads/8/1/5/8/8158007/iosh-aosh_-_jan_16_2016.pdf
http://www.fieldfisher.com/media/3694153/corporate-manslaughter-tracker.pdf
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/foi_disclosures/2016/disclosure_4.pdf
(just cases in England and Wales?)
https://oucriminology.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/corporate-killing-with-impunity-apr-2015.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Manslaughter_and_Corporate_Homicide_Act_2007#Convictions
PLC
https://www.innertemplelibrary.com/category/corporate-manslaughter/
Corporate manslaughter: sentencing (westlaw):
- Sentences to date:
- R. v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 1337; [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26:
- Fine imposed: £385,000, payable over 10 years at a rate of £38,500 per year. The defendant was not asked to pay prosecution costs. Conviction after trial.
- Company financials: Turnover of £154,000.
- R. v JMW Farms Ltd [2012] NICC 17:
- Fine imposed: £187,500, payable over six months along with the prosecution costs of £13,000. The fine was reduced from £250,000 to reflect a guilty plea.
- Company financials: Net profit for previous year was £1.5 million.
- R. v Lion Steel Equipment Limited Unreported, 20 July 2012 (Crown Court, Manchester):
- Fine imposed: £480,000, payable in four instalments over the next four years. Fine reduced from £600,000 due to guilty plea and mitigation. £84,000 in costs (representing 60% of the prosecution's costs) to be paid over two years.
- Company financials: £10,000,000 annual turnover with pre-tax profits between £187,000 and £317,000.
- R. v J Murray & Son Ltd [2013] NICC 15:
- Fine imposed: £100,000 and sentenced to pay prosecution costs of £10,450, the fourth company to be convicted of such offence, following the death of an employee who died after becoming entangled in a meal blending machine. The fine was reduced by one third to reflect a guilty plea.
- Company's financials: in the chartered accountant's opinion , the company was loss making, having been unable to generate operating profits for the last four years. The accountant explained the company had been unable to meet its substantial short-term liabilities and total assets were estimated as £33,000.
- R. v Prince's Sporting Club Ltd (unreported, 22 November 2013): A fine imposed: £35,000 and £100,000 costs (see comment below) following the death of an 11-year-old girl who fell from an inflatable banana boat and was hit by the speedboat towing it. The fine was reduced following a guilty plea.
- R. v Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Ltd (unreported, February 2013): The company was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in costs after pleading guilty to the offence of corporate manslaughter.
- Other notable developments include P. S. and J. E. Ward Limited who were acquitted of corporate manslaughter in April 2014. The company was charged following the death by electrocution of an employee in 2010 after the metal hydraulic lift trailer he was towing came into contact with an overhead power line. This was the first case of a company being found not guilty of the offence. The company was however convicted of an offence under Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £50,000 plus costs of £47,932 for a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Judge Stephen Holt noted that two directors had put some of their own savings into the company to keep it operating and therefore gave them three years to pay the fine.
- In Sterecycle (Rotherham) Limited three senior employees faced charges under s.7 HSWA 1974, reinforcing the potential liability faced by senior managers following a workplace death. By the time the case reached Sheffield Crown Court, Sterecycle had gone into liquidation and was neither present nor represented at the trial. The company was nonetheless convicted following a trial and fined £500,000 with the jury finding the company's maintenance manager not guilty of perverting the course of justice, the health and safety charges against him and two others having previously been abandoned by the CPS. In fining the company £500,000 (the first fine at the level of the sentencing guidelines), Mr Justice Jay acknowledged that the vast majority of the fine would not be paid, but that "The fine will serve to mark society's condemnation of your behaviour, and may act as a deterrent to others".
10. On 19 June 2014, MNS Mining Limitedbecame the second company to be acquitted of corporate manslaughter charges, following a three month trial at Swansea Crown Court. The mine manager, employed by MNS was found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. Conversely, Cavendish Masonry admitted a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act and was found guilty of corporate manslaughter following a trial at Oxford Crown Court in May 2014. The company was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £87,000 in costs.
11. R. v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd [2014] EWCA Crim 533; [2014] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 43: Following a conviction after trial a fine was imposed of £200,000 payable over 12 months together with £90,000 costs following the death of a supervisor who was trapped in an faulty oven which had no means of escape or an alarm. The company's draft accounts showed that for the financial year 2011 the company had profits of £32,769, which had arisen to £76,596 in 2012. Later figures suggested turnover was down and that the company was struggling financially due to the effects of the economic climate. The Judge noted that this was not a company with enormous resources where the fine could be paid immediately
12. R v A, Diamond and Son (Timber) Ltd (unreported, 17 December 2014): the company pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter and were fined £75,000 and £16,000 costs following the death of an employee in a saw mill.
13. R v Peter Mawson Ltd (unreported, 19 December 2014): fine imposed: £200,000 after pleading guilty to the corporate manslaughter offence, and £20,000 for the breaches of health and safety law following the death of an employee. The judge also imposed a publicity order and the company was ordered to pay costs of £31,504.77.
14. R v CAV Aerospace Ltd (unreported, 24 July 2015): the company was convicted following a trial and was sentenced to a fine of £600,000 (and £400,000 under the HSWA 1974) and ordered to pay £125,000 costs following the death of an employee who was trapped under a stack of metal sheets which had collapsed on top of him in a warehouse.
15. R v Baldwins Crane Hire Limited (unreported, December 2015): the company was convicted following a trial and was sentenced to a fine of £700,000 plus costs and half of HSE's costs following the death of a crane driver who was killed in a crash caused by faulty breaks.
16. R v Sherwood Rise Ltd (unreported, 3 December 2015): A care home company pleaded guilty to the offence of corporate manslaughter and was fined £30,000 following the death of an 86 year old resident at a residential home. The care home has since closed down.
17. Sentencing Guideline Council and judicial interpretation: On 9 February 2010, the Sentencing Guidelines Council published a definitive guideline in relation to Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences Causing Death (the "2010 Guidelines"). It was widely acknowledged by academics that penalties imposed on corporate offenders by the courts were moderate in comparison to the punitive approach the 2010 Guidelines offered: that a conviction would carry an unlimited fine and rarely would be less than £500,000. In response, the Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences Definitive Guideline (the "2015 Guidelines") was published and came into effect on 1 February 2016, impacting any case sentenced on or after that date, regardless of the date of the offence committed.
18. In most of the cases sentenced in accordance with the 2010 Guidelines, the sentencing judge has viewed the fatality in question as clearly foreseeable and the companies in question as having fallen far short of the required standard (albeit these are essential ingredients of the Corporate Manslaughter offence). Equally, it appears that due to the size of the companies in question, the judiciary were able to identify the senior management failure which was causative of the fatalities, thus raising the profile of individual directors acts or omissions. At sentence, the judges in the cases of Cotswold Geo, JMW Farms, Lion Steel and Murray (discussed above) heavily referenced the 2010 Guidelines. It is anticipated that considerable weight will be given to the new guidance. The main issues identified for consideration by the guidance include seriousness, financial information and the size of the organisation, the levels of fines and compensation, costs, publicity orders and remedial orders.
19. The 2015 Guidelines are invaluable to understanding how courts will sentence a corporate offender for convictions in all Health and Safety cases and specifically convictions for Corporate Manslaughter. In the interest of brevity, it is not necessary to reproduce every aspect of the Guidelines here.
20. The 2015 Guidelines require the sentencing court to follow 9 steps:
21. Step 1: Determine the seriousness of the offence: The 2015 Guidelines contain a method for the judge to assess the offence category by assessing the culpability and then the harm caused. The court should assess factors affecting the seriousness of the offence within this context by asking:
- How foreseeable was the injury?
- How far short of the applicable standard did the defendant fall?
- How common is this kind of breach in this organisation?
- Was there more than one death, or a high risk of further deaths, or serious personal injury in addition to death?
22. Offences are categorised as A, the most serious, and B, less so.
23. Step 2: Starting point and category range: The size of the fine imposed is then established by reference to the size of the company based on turnover and the culpability and harm category as determined in step 1 above.
24. There are five categories of organisation ranging from micro (where turnover is not more than £2 million) to "very large" (where the offending organisation's turnover very greatly exceeds the threshold for large organisations, namely £50 million and over).
25. Once the size of the company is determined, the judge will refer to the table included in the Guidelines. By way of an example, for a large organisation with a turnover of £50 million and charged with a category A offence, the starting point will be £7.5 million and the category range will be £4.8 million - £20 million. The court should consider any appropriate adjustment within the category range for aggravating and mitigating features.
26. This focus on turnover has caused considerable anxiety amongst those facing prosecution as the starting point for sentencing suggest figures way in excess of those previously considered usual in cases of this nature.
27. The 2015 Guidelines contain a non-exhaustive list of potential aggravating factors are:
- previous convictions having regard to the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence and the time that has elapsed since the conviction (statutory aggravating factor);
- cost cutting at the expense of safety;
- deliberate concealment of illegal nature of activity;
- breach of any court order;
- obstruction of justice;
- poor health and safety record;
- falsification of documentation or licences;
- deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences in order to avoid scrutiny by authorities;
- offender exploited vulnerable victims.
28. Mitigating factors include:
- no previous convictions or relevant/recent convictions;
- evidence of steps taken to remedy the problem;
- high level of co-operation with the investigation, beyond that which will always be expected;
- a good health and safety record;
- effective health and safety procedures in place;
- self-reporting, co-operation and acceptance of responsibility;
- other events beyond the responsibility of the offender contributed to the death (however, actions of victims are unlikely to be considered contributory events. Offenders are required to protect workers who are neglectful of their own safety in a way which is reasonable foreseeable).
29. The above lists are not exhaustive and additional aggravating and mitigating features may be relevant on a case by case basis. For example, in the Murray case the judge also took account of the remorse expressed by the company, demonstrating a willingness on the part of the judiciary to consider other relevant mitigating factors and this would still be available in a suitable case under the 2015 Guidelines.
30. The Guidelines state that as a corporate manslaughter conviction will necessarily be attributable to senior management failure, it is unlikely that the unauthorised act of an employee (senior or otherwise) will significantly reduce the culpability of the defendant in that offence.
31. Step 3: Checking whether the fine based on turnover is proportionate to the overall means of the offender: The court should "step back", review and, if necessary, adjust the initial fine based on turnover (step 2) to ensure that it fulfils the objectives of sentencing for these offences.
32. For any company the most significant consequence of a fine would be to put the company out of business. The 2015 Guideline states that it may be an "acceptable consequence" for a business to be put out of business, however, the courts can take into account the power to allow time for payment or to order that the amount be paid in instalments, if necessary over a number of years. This situation was considered by the Court of Appeal in R. v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 1337; [2012] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 26. There the Court of Appeal held that "the fact that the company would be put into liquidation would be unfortunate, but in [their] judgment, this was unavoidable and inevitable" given the serious breach of duty committed. It is difficult to envisage when a court would not view a breach of duty leading to a conviction of corporate manslaughter as serious. That said, concerns over the survival of Lion Steel was the reason that the company was allowed three years to pay a fine. The potential harm to its innocent workforce of putting the company out of business weighed heavily against the imposition of such a fine.
33. This aspect of sentencing discretion was further considered in the case of R. v J Murray & Son Ltd [2013] NICC 15. Judge Weir comments that:
" careful account of the fact that the accounts presented and the evidence of the Chartered Accountant both indicate that the company is not flourishing and I have no wish to see it forced out of business, principally because it is providing employment in a rural area in these difficult times. Nonetheless the guidelines require that any fine must be punitive and sufficient to have an impact on the company. "
34. Clearly the economic position of the company and the impact of a considerable fine were major factors considered by Judge Weir. Following on from these comments, the company was fined £100,000 to be paid over five years in equal instalments of £20,000. Judge Weir's reference to the guidelines and the need for a fine to be punitive also demonstrate the extremely fine balance between enabling a company to continue its operations and imposing some form of punishment.
35. In the cases of Cotswold, JMW Farms, Lion Steel and Murray, the judges sentencing for corporate manslaughter have referred to the company's employees. In future cases the likelihood of innocent employees being made redundant may be highly relevant to both the level of fine and the time in which it must be paid. In Murray, in an attempt to ensure the continued employment of the company's employees, the company was instructed to pay the fine in five annual instalments of £20,000.
36. If a quantifiable saving has been achieved by the breach of duty, an appropriate additional fine may also be appropriate.
37. The key to a fine is that it will be punitive, but that it is not an attempt to value a human life in financial terms. It was stated that the appropriate fine under the 2010 Guideline would seldom be less than £500,000 and may be measured in millions of pounds (NB, note comments below about why this was not reflected in subsequent cases).
38. Under the 2010 Guideline, the first case to exceed the £500,000 threshold suggested by the Guidelines was the case of CAV Aerospace Ltd on 24 July 2015 and very few cases after this exceeded this. Two factors should be considered, however, in order to put these fines in context. Each of the companies involved were relatively small. Whilst Lion Steel Equipment Limited's figures at a glance may appear substantial, the company was heavily mortgaged, had paid no dividends in the previous three years and was heavily dependent on highly competitive public sector work. In the Murray case, the company's finances were not flourishing and an accountant provided the opinion that "the company had no reasonable prospect of meeting anything other than a modest fine". In most cases, the company's size and financial position was a key factor in determining the fine applicable. Had a more prosperous limited or public company been convicted of corporate manslaughter it seems that in line with the 2010 Guideline, fines would have been considerably higher.
39. However, the fines were far in excess of those previously levied in response to workplace deaths. The old offence of common law corporate manslaughter, which was seen as ineffective at prosecuting large corporates, produced fines of between £15,000 and £90,000. The fines at the higher end of this scale also reflected convictions for offences contrary to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
40. It is noteworthy that of the two convictions immediately following the introduction of the 2015 Guidelines, have resulted in fines in excess of £500,000 and are within their category ranges (see below).
41. Step 4: Consider other factors that may warrant adjustment of the proposed fine: The court may adjust the fine upwards or downwards, including outside the range by looking at factors such as profitability and impact of the fine on the ability of the offender to comply with health and safety legislation.
42. Step 5: Considering any factors which could give rise to a reduction/discounted sentence as a result of assistance to the prosecutor or investigator: The court should take into account ss.73 and 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (assistance by defendants: reduction or review of sentence) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.
43. Step 6: Discount for a guilty plea: As is normal, guilty pleas will be recognised with an appropriate reduction. The amount of the discount is dependent upon the stage at which proceedings have reached. The maximum allowable discount is a third. The credit given in Lion Steel reflected that the plea was entered before trial, but at a relatively advanced stage of the proceedings. Maximum Credit was given in Murray for an early guilty plea whereby the company's fine was discounted by one third. Whether maximum credit is available for a plea can often depend on indications of a plea or the entering of a guilty plea in the Magistrates Court hearings. Reduction in sentences for a guilty plea has recently been the subject of a consultation by the SGC and details can be found here.
44. Step 7: Compensation and ancillary orders: The 2015 Guidelines state that, in all cases, the court must consider whether to make ancillary orders. Ancillary orders include publicity orders and remedial orders. Where the offender does not have sufficient means to pay the total financial penalty considered appropriate by the court, compensation and fine take priority over prosecution costs.
45. In the vast majority of cases it was deemed that this will be something dealt with in the civil, rather than criminal courts. For example, in the Murray case Judge Weir clearly stated that "any question of compensation …will be a matter for the civil courts and I make no order in that regard".
46. In exceptional circumstances, however, such as the defendant being uninsured and unable to pay substantial compensation, consideration should be given to an order in respect of bereavement and/or funeral expenses.
47. Cotswold Geotechnical Limited were not ordered to pay costs, but it was stated that had the company been in a stronger financial position it would have been ordered to do so. The prosecution costs claimed in the Lion Steel case were substantially reduced. This may have been a reflection of the judicial disquiet over the delay in prosecuting the case. In R. v Prince's Sporting Club Ltd (unreported, 22 November 2013) the company was ordered to pay costs of £100,000, which appears to be significant when considering the fine was £35,000.
48. The first publicity order to be imposed by the courts was in the case of R. v Princes Sporting Club Limited. Most cases of this nature will attract significant publicity and in the circumstances a newspaper announcement may be unnecessary. Whilst in the Princes Sporting Club and Mobile Sweepers (Reading) Limited cases, neither company was large or well known, it is felt by some commentators they may be more appropriate where the convicted party is a larger "household" name. Where they are ordered, the defendant will meet the costs in addition to the fine, compensation order and prosecution costs. The cost of a prominent announcement in the national media is likely to be significant.
49. Step 8: Totality principle: The court must consider whether the total sentence imposed for a number of offences are just and proportionate to the offending.
50. Step 9: Give reasons: The court has a duty to give reasons for the sentence imposed.
51. Post implementation of the 2015 Sentencing Guidelines: Two cases of note sentenced in accordance with the 2015 Guidelines are:
52. R v Monavon Construction Ltd (unreported, 27 June 2016):
- Fine imposed: £550,000, to be paid in two years (£250,00 for each death and £50,000 for breach of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974), and costs awarded in the sum of £23,000 payable in six months, following the deaths of two passers-by who died after falling 4 metres through a building site's perimeter hoarding. This was a category A offence.
- Company's financial: The company were a micro organisation with a turnover of less than £2 million. During the proceedings, Judge Worsley asked the CPS to confirm the reliability of the company's accounts in order to assess the company's financial status. The judge awarded the company a credit of £50,000 for each count of corporate manslaughter following their attempts to mitigate the breach of duty.
53. R v Bilston Skips Ltd (unreported, 16 August 2016): Where the company was fined £600,000 following the death of an employee who fell into a skip. The company is now in liquidation.
54. Summary: It is clear that where the sentencing court follows the guidelines there is the potential for the resultant fines to be substantial and way in excess of those previously experienced. The larger the company, the more significant and potentially headline grabbing the fines are likely to be. Many commentators and practitioners are surprised at the lack of convictions since the commencement of the Act. The conviction of relatively small companies provided limited opportunity for a more sophisticated application of the 2010 Guidelines and there has be scant consideration of the Act away from the Crown Court. However, further convictions, particularly of larger companies and public sector bodies and subsequently sentenced under the 2015 Guidelines do have the potential to produce fines of such large sums that the higher courts will inevitably be called upon to review the application of the 2015 Guidelines
[1] Dobson A, 'Directors' liability for death or workplace injury' (2013) International Journal of Law & Management 385
[2] Wells C, 'Corporate criminal liability: a ten year review' (2014) Criminal Law Review 849
[3] https://www.dwf.law/news-events/dwf-press/2014/06/dwf-delivers-a-unique-result-in-norwich-county-court-corporate-manslaughter/
[5] 452 Health and Safety Bulletin 2 (Lexis Nexis)