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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll