Fines under the updated sentencing guidelines have continued to rise since its introduction in 2016.
The Sentencing Council first issued 'The Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences - Definitive Guideline' in February 2016.
In 2018 updated sentencing guidelines were issued to judges which increased prison sentences for people convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in a workplace setting. These guidelines mean that anyone convicted of gross negligence manslaughter could face up to 18 years in prison.
In 2019 the Sentencing Council published their impact assessment for the 2016 guidelines, noting that fines for large organizations sentenced for health and safety violations had increased. The impact assessment also noted that there had been an increase in fines for corporate manslaughter offences.
According to DWF's assessment of the impact of the guidelines, in 2017/2018:
In the same year, the guidelines were introduced, Balfour Beatty was fined £2.6 million for breaches which led to the death of a worker in an unshored, 2.4m deep trench, and ScottishPower was fined £1.75 million after a worker was badly scalded by steam released from a faulty valve. He survived but has been medically retired.
Smaller companies have received smaller, but significant fines – a Birmingham-based construction firm was fined £100,000 following the fatal fall from a roof of a bricklayer. A year ago, such fines were rare.
The new sentencing guidelines apply to all cases considered since 1 February 2016 – regardless of when the offence was committed. The Balfour Beatty case related to an accident in April 2010, and whilst the company’s lawyers argued that it would be unfair to apply the sentencing guidelines given the time it had taken to come to court, the Judge disagreed.
The fine an organization will face once found guilty depends on four key factors:
Culpability is measured on a four-point scale. At the bottom end, the organization needs to show it had made significant efforts to address the risk but on this occasion the measures were inadequate, or the failure was a one-off.
At the top end, the court would look for evidence of a “deliberate breach of or flagrant disregard for the law” such as ignoring an HSE enforcement notice or warnings from staff or unions about a hazard. ScottishPower’s culpability could have been considered near the top end, in that the faulty valve had been reported as needing repair in 2009 and again in 2013, just two weeks before the accident.
The second step is to consider the risk of harm created by the offence on a scale of 1 (high likelihood of a serious outcome such as death or reduced life expectancy) to 4 (low likelihood of harm which would not be permanent).
Whilst the guidelines give examples on the harm scale, there is no explanation of how to determine high, medium, or low likelihood. Where an accident has occurred this is likely to influence the choice of harmful outcome considered, but where someone has had a narrow escape, the court could still determine a more serious risk had been present. If a large number of people are exposed to risk, this can also increase the harm category.
The sentencing guidelines then provide four tables relating to the turnover of an organization. At the bottom end, a “micro” organization has a turnover of less than £2 million; at the top end, a large organization has a turnover of £50 million or more.
There is a note to explain that “where an offending organization's turnover … greatly exceeds the threshold for large organizations, it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range.” There is still uncertainty over how this applies – for example, would an organization with a turnover of £500 million (ten times the bottom limit in the large table) have penalties multiplied by a factor of ten? Only time will tell.
Each table provides suggested starting points and ranges for the fine, depending on culpability and harm as determined in the first two steps (see illustration below).
The simplified table here shows the starting point and range of fines for only the highest and lowest culpability for the highest “risk of harm created by the offence” for the large and micro organizations.
| Size (Turnover) | Harm Category = 1 | Very High Culpability | Low Culpability |
| Large - £50 million + | Starting Point: | £4 million | £300,000 |
| Range: | £2.6 million - £10 million | £240,000 - £1.3 million | |
| Micro - Under £2 million | Starting Point: | £250,000 | £30,000 |
| Range: | £150,000 - £450,000 | £18,000 - £60,000 |
From the starting point, the courts will consider mitigating and aggravating criteria – evidence of cost-cutting at the expense of safety or falsification of documentation could move an organization up the range, whilst evidence of good health and safety practices and procedures might shift the fine down the range.
From the table above it can be seen that for the same accident the fine for a large organization could range from £240,000 to £10 million, depending on the evidence of culpability and mitigating/aggravating factors, whilst for a small organization the fine could range from £18,000 to £450,000. Where culpability is very high, a fine could represent several years’ profit.
We all hope there won’t be an accident in our workplace, but if the worst happens it is well to be armed with the evidence that can demonstrate low culpability, well-managed risks, and monitored processes in place.
Many organizations have separate risk assessments and training records, whether on paper or in spreadsheets or documents. This makes the process of checking that training in hazard controls has been provided and refreshed at a suitable interval both time-consuming and prone to error.
EcoOnline has expedited this window of error by keeping all your records in one place through our risk assessment software module and training management software module.
Contact one of our product experts for advice on how training records and risk assessments can all be managed more efficiently with EcoOnline, or Request A Demo.