header-logo header-logo

05 February 2016 / Rosie Nelson , Emma Davies
Issue: 7685 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

No more Mr Nice Guy

nlj_7685_daviesnelson

Sentencing of very large organisations: Emma Davies & Rosie Nelson report

The common theme running through the recent changes to legislation and guidelines on sentencing is that big businesses must step up their efforts to improve their regulatory compliance—or pay the hefty price.

In the past, less serious regulatory offences were tried in the magistrates’ courts, where the cap on fines at £20,000 proved to be a mere slap on the wrists for big businesses. But the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) now gives magistrates powers to issue unlimited fines. This alone should be sufficient to strike fear into the hearts of large organisations with poor track records for regulatory compliance.

In relation to environmental offences, the recent Court of Appeal case, R v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 960, [2015] All ER (D) 31 (Jun), demonstrates the new, tougher sentencing that judges are willing to impose. In this case, the court at first instance found Thames Water to have been negligent in its failure to replace

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll