Clifton Steel Ltd, R. v

When sentencing a corporate offender for a health and safety offence, the court must impose a fine that is a fitting expression of censure and encourages improved performance, while avoiding a counterproductive penalty that threatens an underfunded business. The penalty must be fixed for the incident itself, rather than increased by adding together its several manifestations in indictment counts. The offender’s means and ability to continue trading are material. Statistical comparisons with average fines provide little assistance. A fine may be varied where the overall financial burden is manifestly excessive when those principles are applied.

Clifton Steel Ltd, a steel stockholder and processor, pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to breaches of section 2(1) and section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. An employee was fatally injured when a stack of steel coils collapsed during crane operations.

The company was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. Judge Ross imposed a fine of £150,000 and prosecution costs of £20,000, later making directions for payment. The company appealed against sentence, contending that its culpability was low and that the fine was excessive in light of its means, mitigation and ability to trade. The central issue was whether the fine and costs were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The fine of £150,000 was quashed and replaced with a fine of £100,000. The order for £20,000 prosecution costs remained in force.
2. The court upheld the sentencing judge’s assessment that the offending was serious. Although the company had cooperated with the Health and Safety Executive, pleaded guilty promptly, shown remorse and improved its safety arrangements, it had failed to assess the risks of dismantling stacks of coils using plastic cradles. Its procedures did not address that operation or the danger created by placing an employee in the path of an unrestrained heavy coil.
3. The court considered that statistical averages of fines gave little assistance. Applying the sentencing principles stated in R v Yorkshire Water [2001] EWCA Crim. 2635, a court must balance effective punishment and deterrence against the counterproductive consequences of an excessive financial penalty for an underfunded organisation. It must also sentence the incident rather than aggregate its manifestations in separate counts.
4. Having regard to those principles and the company’s financial position, the combined burden of the £150,000 fine and £20,000 costs order was manifestly excessive. A £100,000 fine was appropriate.
5. The court made no defendant’s costs order for the appeal. Apart from substituting the lower fine, it made no change to the sentencing order; enforcement of the outstanding payment was left to the ordinary process.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a £100,000 fine for the £150,000 fine imposed below: [2007] EWCA Crim 1537.
• Crown Court: Following committal for sentence, Judge Ross imposed a £150,000 fine and ordered £20,000 prosecution costs. He later made directions for payment.
• Birmingham Magistrates’ Court: The company pleaded guilty to breaches of section 2(1) and section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.