Yorkshire Sheeting & Insulation Ltd, R. v

In sentencing a company for an offence under Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the court must assess that company’s own culpability and the extent of its criminal default. It should not begin with an overall figure and apportion liability between co-defendants by percentage. A foreseeable risk of fatal injury may require a substantial fine. The penalty must nevertheless reflect the offender’s particular failures, the seriousness of the risk, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. There is no tariff for such cases.

A specialist roofing contractor pleaded guilty to an offence under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 after a self-employed roof sheeter fell through an uncovered roof light and died.

The Crown Court at York fined the appellant £100,000 and ordered it to contribute to costs. In fixing sentence, the judge treated the deceased as the appellant’s employee and assessed relative moral culpability between the appellant and the main contractor at 90% and 10% respectively.

The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the judge had correctly assessed the appellant’s individual culpability and whether the resulting fine was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The fine of £100,000 was excessive. It was replaced by a fine of £55,000. The costs order remained unchanged.
2. The sentencing judge made factual errors. The deceased was not the appellant’s employee. There was also evidence that roofers had been instructed not to enter unnetted areas and that roof lights in the working area had been covered.
3. The judge’s percentage apportionment of culpability between the appellant and the main contractor obscured the correct sentencing exercise. The issue was the appellant’s own culpability for its failure to secure, so far as reasonably practical, the safety of roofers under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
4. The appellant bore principal responsibility as the specialist roofing contractor. Its default was serious. The risk of falls through fragile roof lights was clear and foreseeable, and the company failed adequately to arrange netting, cover relevant roof lights, demarcate safe working areas, and ensure roofers stayed within them.
5. However, the sentence had to reflect the appellant’s particular conduct rather than the totality of failures by all involved. The company had no previous prosecution, had a good safety record, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, co-operated with the investigation, and took remedial action. A substantial fine was required, but one in the region of £60,000 was appropriate; allowing for the retained costs order, £55,000 was substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a fine of £55,000: [2003] EWCA Crim 458.
• Crown Court at York: Following guilty pleas, imposed a fine of £100,000 and ordered the appellant to contribute to costs.