FEATURE
THREE YEARS ON: PUTTING H&S FIRST
The revised health and safety sentencing guidelines introduced in
February 2016, have delivered greatly increased fines for offences across all sectors in England and Wales. Helen Devery, head of health & safety
and partner at law firm BLM, explores the impact the guidelines continue to have on organisations and their employees.
In February 2016, the Sentencing Guidelines Council introduced new sentencing guidelines for health & safety offences in the workplace. Organisational safety was put into sharp focus and hefty fines were promised for those companies failing to protect employees against known and preventable safety risks. True to their word, fines have rocketed across industries, with courts handing down fines in the millions in some cases.
The guidelines require courts to consider culpability, the seriousness and likelihood of harm caused or risked, together with turnover. A business with a turnover in excess of £50m could face fines of up to £10m for the most serious offences, whilst corporate manslaughter charges could see fines reaching £20m. In the three years since the guidelines were introduced, the 10 highest fines handed down total £30.4m.
ONE SIZE DOESN’T FIT ALL Large organisations have grabbed the headlines for these huge fines, with the £5m handed to Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd in the wake of the Alton Tower’s Smiler incident being the highest fine to date. However, the majority of prosecutions are against much smaller businesses that have lacked the manpower or financial resources to equip well- structured safety management systems.
Fines are commensurate with turnover and whilst smaller businesses rarely face million-pound fines, they can be subject to fines running into the hundreds of thousands. Micro-business Avon Joinery Limited (turnover: £701,703), for example, faced a huge fine of £230,000 when an employee’s finger was severed after his hand came into contact with a circular saw – potentially catastrophic for the organisation. No court sets out to destroy a business, its ability to remain viable following a fine is taken into consideration; however, this does not mean the fine will not be punitive and the impact must be felt across the business.
The assessment of culpability can increase the size of a fine considerably, as there is a sliding scale from low to very high with the varying bands of fines being huge in some cases. The likelihood and risk of harm is also considered on a scale with the highest risk of harm being death or catastrophic injury, down to injuries from which people recover without issue. The combination of the category of harm and the culpability of the business can mean that very large
14
companies with the high culpability and high harm categories will easily face a fine in several millions if mitigation is not accepted.
Last summer, the Sentencing Council announced revised sentences for individuals convicted of gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) which was excluded from the 2016 guidelines. The guidance adopts a more punitive approach to sentences; with the most serious cases seeing individuals face up to 18 years in prison. Significantly, the sentences are retrospective, so apply to all cases heard before the courts after November 2018, irrespective of the date of offence.
RISK CALCULATION Every industry carries its own unique set of hazards, all increasing the risk of harm. This was a key development in the guidelines, as the risk of harm is considered irrespective of whether an injury has occurred. In practice, this means that a system of work which exposes employees to risk is vulnerable to a prosecution. The more employees exposed is taken into consideration, as is the length of time that risk has existed.
Whether you are a business which involves the operation of large machinery, providing a public service or running a hotel, there are many and varied aspects of risk.
LOOKING FORWARD Ignorance is no defence to any prosecution irrespective of the size of business. Organisations must be proactive and reactive in terms of risk assessment and training. Reviewing the adequacy of policies and procedures and responding effectively to near misses to prevent future incidents are all important features of what a good safety management system looks like.
In some companies, a culture of confusion, or even disinterest, can exist in response to health & safety regulation. It is therefore, vital to tackle this culture from the top down, and manage regulations in a proactive manner which leads to real change for the safety of staff.
The last three years have sent a stark message across all sectors. Engagement with safety issues and education across industries is key to ensuring that safety statistics improve across the board. Managing risk is a priority – full stop.
www.blmlaw.com
www.tomorrowshs.com
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
