FEATURE SPONSOR


HEALTH & SAFETY - COMPLIANCE


DETERMINING THE OFFENCE CATEGORY


At their most basic level, the guidelines consider the culpability (blameworthiness) of the offender followed by the risk of harm. It should be emphasised this second test is to risk of harm, not the actual harm done.


IN TERMS OF CULPABILITY, THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS…


• Very high – Deliberate breach of or flagrant disregard for the law


• High – Offender fell far short of the appropriate standard; for example, by… º


Failing to put in place measures that are recognised standards in the industry


º º


º º


Ignoring concerns raised by employees or others


Failing to make appropriate changes following prior incident(s) exposing risks to health and safety


Allowing breaches to subsist over a long period of time


Serious and/or systemic failure within the organisation to address risks to health and safety


º º


• Medium º


OBTAINING FINANCIAL INFORMATION


Offender fell short of the appropriate standard in a manner that falls between descriptions in ‘high’ and ‘low’ culpability categories


º Systems were in place but these were not sufficiently adhered to or implemented


• Low


Offender did not fall far short of the appropriate standard; for example, because…


º


Significant efforts were made to address the risk although they were inadequate on this occasion


There was no warning/ circumstance indicating a risk to health and safety


Failings were minor and occurred as an isolated incident


SERIOUSNESS OF HARM


Once the level of culpability is identified then the risk of harm is established by using the table above to identify an initial harm category, based on the risk of harm created by the offence. The assessment of harm requires consideration of both the seriousness of the harm risked (A, B or C) by the offender’s breach and the likelihood of that harm arising (high, medium or low).


Reference is then made to the turnover, or equivalent, of the offender (not profit). Depending on the turnover, reference is then made to a table of penalties, with companies categorised as follows… • Large – over £50 million turnover or equivalent


• Medium – between £10m-£50m • Small – between £2m-£10m • Micro – under £2m


By way of example, the table left shows the penalties that would be applicable for a medium sized organisation… In addition to the penalty arrived at would be any reduction for a guilty plea, which can be up to one third for an early guilty plea at the first hearing, along with any payment of both the prosecution’s legal and investigatory costs. Whilst any risk management should aim


to reduce culpability to zero, in real terms the aim must be to bring the culpability into the lowest category, and to reduce the risk of harm to harm category 4. Any mitigation should also seek to achieve the same.


Andrew Oliver Head of


Renewable Energy


Andrew Jackson Solicitors


SCAN/CLICK


MORE INFO


www.windenergynetwork.co.uk


13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76