Large firms face higher penalties for safety crimes

New official sentencing guidelines should lead to a dramatic increase in penalties on larger firms for serious workplace safety crimes. The guidelines published by the Sentencing Council came into force on 1 February 2016, and indicate that judges in England and Wales should impose fines reflecting the size of the convicted organisation. Major companies convicted of corporate manslaughter could now face fines of up to £20m under new sentencing guidelines (Risks 727). An analysis by Howard Fidderman, editor of Health and Safety Bulletin, suggests the majority of penalties following a fatality at work will increase as a consequence of the new guide, with larger firms seeing the biggest increases. Fidderman examined the 50 most recent cases where the judge accepted a criminal safety offence was a significant cause of a death at work and compared actual fines with the ‘starting point’ penalties under the new sentencing guide for judges. Out of the 50 cases, only eight were close to the starting points set out in the new guideline. Of the rest, 23 were more than one-third below, and 19 were higher. But a clear pattern emerged when Fidderman examined the size of the firms prosecuted. The analysis showed 16 of the 21 fines imposed on large companies were lower than the starting point, while 14 of the 17 fines imposed on small and micro companies were higher. A £200,000 fine on construction giant Sir Robert McAlpine following the death of 60-year-old subcontract worker Philip Evans (Risks 713), would under the new guidelines have a starting point of £600,000. An £80,000 fine on Gerber Juice Company following the death of 24-year-old Gavin Bedford (Risks 655), would under the new rules also have a starting point of £600,000. And a £300,000 fine on Thames Water Utilities Limited following the death of 59-year-old employee Raymond Holmes (Risks 684), would also now attract a fine no smaller than £600,000.

dengland, that's a very interesting question. Hopefully someone on here will have a definitive answer. I do not and have no knowledge of how the law works in this regard.

Perhaps the location of the trial should reflect the location of the offence. But, it would be for a judge to decide where the offence took place: on the factory floor or in the Board room, so there would need to be a pre-trial hearing to establish where jurisdiction properly lies.