Posted By Raymond Rapp As a mater of interest do employers fear the cost of criminal prosecution more than civil claims? If so, why? I would be interested in your views. Regards Ray

Posted By Rob T Jonathan, I'd be intrigued to know which civil law allows for a prison sentance. Even manslaughter is now a criminal offence, which was the one and only that used to allow that tariff. Non-payment of fines for civil cases become criminal so they are out of the loop too.

Posted By Martyn Hendrie Civil, most of the "bonkers conkers" stories in the press relate to a fee of being sued not a fear of being prosecuted in the criminal courts.

Posted By J Knight Civil mainly; because of the lower level of proof and the apportionment of blame its much easier to be sued successfully than prosecuted, so it happens much more often. We get sued a few times every year, but we ain't been prosecuted yet (don't worry, I'm not complacent about being sued and we are working on it). Having said that, many people, including Britain's professional, well-educated and almost infallible journalists, use the term 'sued' to mean being done in general, and don't clearly distinguish between the two processes; of course this changes once they've been prosecuted for something. This concern is very much misplaced though; as we know, the costs of a law-suit can usually be recovered (note: I'm not talking about accident costs, just the compensation award and costs), but a fine can't, so the latter hurts the bottom line much more. Of course, claims push premiums up; but by how much? And being claim free will never mean zero insurance costs, since we have a legal duty to be insured and there will always be a cost for it, John

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Ray, I think it's the hidden costs of the criminal prosecution that worry employers, especially those with visible brands. Risk of brand damage from whatever source is very high on most risk registers these days, and a successful (or even an unsuccessful) criminal case can be perceived by Joe Public as bad performance by the brand. By and large - and I can think of exceptions of course - the civil claims don't get such publicity and can be solved by the application of coin of the realm. So I'd say motivation derives from fear of all the consequences, not solely the direct cost. Hope this makes some kind of sense? Allan

Posted By Ralph Baqar I’d agree with Allan on this one. For the larger businesses it’s the stakeholders who fear criminal prosecution and enforcement, especially plc’s. The damage to reputation and the added issue of going to court is seen , in my view, as more serious by many individuals and companies. Many of these companies have gone as far to have specific contingency plans for any incident they perceive may result in adverse media coverage. I’ve personally found that many companies don’t understand the concept behind civil claims. As an example; variant levels of managers find it hard to understand how a non employee can sue their company and the reasoning behind it. Fortunately we have some sophisticated systems in place to alleviate this problem however, there are many hidden costs that are not recoverable. This in itself is a significant cost to any business. I have to say that I’m generally not getting any more civil claims than I was say 5 years ago, so I’m not sure if there is a sharp rise elsewhere? I stand to be corrected.

Posted By ITK CMIOSH Having previously worked in the enforcement sector I can say from my experience avoidance of civil claims was the main motivator for most SM-E's. PL C's are a very small wedge of the pie and they have enough paperwork to sink a ship.

Posted By Pete48 I am not sure that it is on the radar of most in a day to day sense. In better run organisations it will be one of the criteria used in risk profiling so fear is not a good term. In all organisations of any size, it will depend upon and vary not only due to the type and size of business but also the recent history of involvement with proceedings of either ilk, defined risk to brand image etc. If a prosecution, for example, is not for failures directly related to the public image view of core business, the impact can be zero. For example, prosecution for what non-safety people may see as esoteric matters such as control of FLT may have no impact on a food retailers brand image: but one to do with food safety is a different beast altogether. IMHO, if pushed to comment, managers are more likely to see civil claims as the bigger threat to the business on a day to day basis.

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH Ray, Yes it was a type o, as St H states stigma, as we both know of cases that have in 1, a manager and 2 a Director both being prosectued by the HSE, 1 now works in a large DIY shop whilst 2 works? Ask a Company which they would perfer, if they had too, they would state civil as it would cost them less in the long term, and they would not appear on the name and shame web site!!!!!