header-logo header-logo

Penalty hike for health & safety?

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

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

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