Seamus - I guess that we have to assume that the courts took all the relevant factors into account when setting the fine such as the degree of culpability, the level of negligence, the plea, the size, turnover and profits of the company etc. Without knowoing all the facts it is difficult to argue that the fine was either too small or too big really.

And then there was the Transco fine £15M Reckon they had plenty in the bank?

So in answer to others posts, if i own a small company, it is ok to expose my employees to asbestos, as i know that i will only get a small fine, because our turnover and profit margins are only small, what a joke!

Rick, it isn't ok and that isn't how the law sees it, and it's not really a joke, just a 'practicality'. There seems little point imnposing a fine that can't be paid! I can't recall the case off the top of my head but it was established, I believe at the court of appeal that the judge should take account of a number of factors including the turnover and profit of a company. There is no point the judge imposing a fine that the company simply can't pay. One of the principles was I believe to have a finacial penalty that 'hurt' the company sufficiently to (hopefully) make it change its ways without putting it out of business as this would be economically detrimental to the workforce, unless of course the breaches were so serious that the workforce would be best protected by the demise of the company. I can't recall a case of this happening , but it is possible that such a case may lead to a loss of business and therefore have that affect I suppose.

Seamus A very good point. Indeed, it is practised ubiquitously by many parent companies in the UK. They export their risky business to a subsidiary which is normally a legal entity in its own right. Therefore when the preverbial hits the fan it is usually the subsidiary which ends up in court and gets fined - not the parent company. Worse still, it is not uncommon to starve the subsidiary of assets and funds just in case, which can also result in a lack of investment in proper health and safety measures.

Phil et al The case I think you refer to is R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd the Court of Appeal gave a non-exhaustive list of particular aggravating and mitigating factors which might be relevant when a court decides sentence in health and safety cases. There are a lot of factors to be taken into account when sentencing, early guilty plea for example as well as many others. HSE have a lot of them listed, i.e. if you plead guilty at an early stage you get a "discount" (not the proper wording I know but best I can think of at this time). s.164(2) Criminal Justice Act (‘CJA’) 2003. Courts must also take the seriousness of the offence into account when imposing custodial and community sentences – see sections 152 and 148 CJA 2003 respectively. See HSE website FACTORS RELEVANT TO SENTENCING http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...t/sentencing-factors.htm Anyone knowingly and deliberately exposing someone to the effects of asbestos by not planning work, providing SSoW and PPE training etc. etc, in my humble opinion is not committing manslaughter but is committing murder, it is a known deliberate act calculated (in my opinion) for increasing profit. Just my personal view. Question I would ask is that where the act of exposing someone to asbestos knowingly and deliberately can be proven, are the consequences of the CMCH Act not taking a hard enough line and being too soft on killers? I believe that, in this deliberate type of case that they have sentenced the exposed people to a death sentence (irrespective that it happens a year after the incident) at a later stage!!! So is that not homicide? Do away with the year and a day rule in these cases! If you are just interested inthe actual sentencing you can interact and make judgement on cases. Follow this link to the Criminal Justice System sitehttp://ybtj.cjsonline.gov.uk/ You can hear the case, decide upon a sentence and compare your sentence with that given by the actual courts. It is an eye opener. You need about 10 minutes to do this though. I hget my students to do it. Go on, have a go, see what sentence you would give the alleged offender(criminal) (shame there is not a H&S offence to be heard). That would be a good one for this forum to discuss. Regards Tim B

The "year and a day" rule was done away with completely some time ago in Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. And while some people seem to develop asbestosis/mesothelioma after only short exposures the symptoms take decades to develop, many decades. So not much risk of the "perpetrators" (AKA "perps") being manhandled to the courts. In any case, people should be prepared to take risks to have a job. These are hard times you know, and [sarcasmwarning] if their deaths occur at-or-around their 65th birthday then it's a win-win situation for the state [/sarcasmwarning]

That is a useful site

Bob, not sure what the CM&CHA 2007 has to do with 'individual liability' as the Act specifically excludes it. Only an organisation can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter and assuming the various legal tests within the Act have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. That said, the larger the organisation the more difficult it will be to prove guilt and subsidiarys of larger organsiations will most likely be accountable rather than the parent or holding company.

Tim, I got 2 correct, (they were guesses) not a very good result, my son who is almost 10, got 3 correct. I found the website very useful, and it could be used for lots of training etc. In Ireland the legal system differs slightly, in that we don’t have magtrates, In the lower court we have a district court judge who acts without a jury, for indictable offences the case goes to a higher court and the accused gets the option of being tried by judge, or by judge and jury. All cases start in the District court. I have noticed that in many health and safety cases, many who are accused plead guilty and use mitigation like , it was the first offence ( really should say it was our first time getting caught!!), or we are very sorry etc, or we have spent a fortune now to address the problem (perhaps hinting that the problem could have been sorted out previously, but at a great cost). Overall it really is a useful site. Thanks

Interesting site Tim. I got the "deciding factors" (e.g. "does sentimental value effect sentencing?") correct but I was "over" on all my sentencing decisions compared to the actual penalty awarded. Would be good if they could get some input from HSE/IOSH and create a Corporate Manslaughter or other H&S related case to work through in an effort to raise awareness of consequences.