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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll