header-logo header-logo

20 November 2014
Issue: 7631 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Penalty hike for health & safety?

Proposed sentencing guidelines will lead to “great consternation” in certain sectors

Proposed sentencing guidelines for health and safety and corporate manslaughter could result in companies paying 10 or 15 times existing fines and will cause “consternation” in boardrooms, a QC has warned.

The draft guidelines, published by the Sentencing Council and now subject to public consultation, cover corporate manslaughter, health and safety and food safety and hygiene offences. They introduce tougher penalties for more serious offences, using turnover as a base for calculation, for example, a company could face a fine of up to £10m for a fatal health and safety conviction. Large organisations found to have committed corporate manslaughter could face penalties of up to £20m.

Gerard Forlin QC, of Cornerstone Barristers, who specialises in health and safety cases, says: “I’m not saying that lots of companies are going to leave the UK in response, but this will certainly cause great consternation inside certain boards and sectors.

“It looks like this could lead to penalties of 10-15 times the current level—up to £20m in the most serious corporate manslaughter cases and, for businesses with a turnover that very greatly exceeds £50m, penalties could go up to, say, £50m. I think this will lead to more contested trials, particularly for large organisations with reputational issues. For smaller organisations, it could well lead to more early disposal of cases by way of a basis of plea.

“Interestingly, it’s a 14-week consultation over Christmas. However, people can’t moan about this unless they respond. It further appears that these proposals in the main may become effective before the end of the year and will almost certainly in the meantime be brought to the attention of judges as being persuasive.”

The council said there was a lack of sentencing guidance for these offences other than corporate manslaughter and fatal health and safety offences, and that existing guidance covered organisations but not individuals. They are intended to cover a wide range of offences from rat infestations to a supermarket’s failure to recall faulty food products.

The consultation closes on 18 February 2015.

Issue: 7631 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll