This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Sentencing safety criminals

This report relates to 4 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    R v Brintons Ltd 22 June 1999 CA (0 other reports)

  • expand disabled

    R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] IRLR 434 CA (0 other reports)

  • expand

    R v Friskies Petcare (UK) Ltd [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 401 CA (1 other report)

    • Court of Appeal reduces Friskies fine by £350k

      Date:
      1 October 2001

      In R v Friskies Petcare UK Ltd, the Court of Appeal reduces a fine from £600,000 to £250,000 for breaches of health and safety legislation that resulted in the death of an employee. The decision applies to, and elaborates on, some of the sentencing criteria set out in the 1998 Court of Appeal decision in R v Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd, and provides guidance for the conduct of future cases.

  • expand disabled

    R v Rollco Screw and Rivet Co Ltd [1999] IRLR 439 CA (0 other reports)

Few people dispute that the severity of sentences imposed on employers convicted of criminal offences under health and safety at work legislation has been woefully inadequate. By late 1998, criticisms had become so strong that the Court of Appeal said enough was enough. In the landmark case of R v Howe & Sons Ltd 1999 2 All ER, it said that the general level of fines that magistrates and judges were imposing for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and related Regulations was too low. To rectify this, the Court of Appeal set out the criteria - including mitigating and aggravating factors - that courts should take into account when fixing the level of a fine.