header-logo header-logo

Health & safety fine levels soar for UK plc

04 February 2016
Issue: 7685 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New sentencing guidelines represent “sea change” in health & safety law

Health and safety fines are soaring, with four UK companies incurring fines of more than £1m in the space of six days in January.

Fines of £4.8m were imposed between 21 and 26 January 2016. Meanwhile, tough new sentencing guidelines for health and safety and corporate manslaughter took effect on 1 February. Under the guidelines, large UK companies face unlimited fines with a starting point of £7.5m on organisations with a turnover of more than £50m, for corporate manslaughter. Smaller organisations with a turnover of up to £2m could face a fine of £450,000 or more.

Last month, C.RO Ports London Ltd was fined £1.8m following an incident where an employee caught his arm in a rotating machine. National Grid Gas plc was fined £1m after an engineer became trapped between two gas pipes. Balfour Beatty was fined £1m after a fatal crane incident. UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd was fined £1m following the death of a runner who was electrocuted by a low-hanging high voltage power cable.

Gerard Forlin QC, of Cornerstone Barristers, who told NLJ in November that the new guidelines would “send a chill through corporate UK”, says: “Many parties may well have been trying to get cases to court before the guillotine date of 1 February 2016 heralding the new guidelines. The above listed fines appear to be a barometer or precursor of what is to come.

“Fine levels (and terms of imprisonment) are set to explode, and will inevitably lead to more trials. For those cases where guilty pleas will be entered, complicated preliminary hearings dealing with culpability bandings and turnover utilising experts will become the norm. Only time will tell, but how easily will courts be able to manage these additional, potentially lengthy hearings in already clogged up calendars? These guidelines represent a real challenge to everyone concerned.”

Danny McShee, partner at Kennedys, says: “The new sentencing guidelines represent a sea change in health and safety law. We anticipate that as the courts become familiar with the guidelines over the coming months, we will be increasingly advising corporate clients that they face a level of fine which, until very recently, would have been almost unfathomable.”

Issue: 7685 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll