John Pointon & Sons, R v

A sentencing court may impose separate fines for separate health and safety offences, or a single fine for the principal offence. In either course, it must apply totality, avoid double counting and ensure that the overall fine is not manifestly excessive.

There is no tariff for corporate health and safety offending. A previous figure of £500,000 for an employee death is guidance only. It is neither a floor nor a ceiling. Overlapping offences should not attract separate punishment where one is subsumed within another.

John Pointon & Sons Ltd, a rendering company, was prosecuted after two workers entered a hopper to clear a blockage. One worker died and the other was seriously injured after exposure to an oxygen-poor and toxic-gas environment.

The company pleaded guilty to offences concerning employee safety and risk assessment. It was convicted after trial of offences concerning a safe confined-space system and rescue arrangements, and acquitted of manslaughter. The sentencing judge imposed total fines of £620,000.

By leave of the Single Judge, the company appealed against the fines and costs order. The central issues were whether separate fines were permissible, whether the total was manifestly excessive, whether the risk-assessment count was subsumed within another count, and whether costs should be varied.

Appeal allowed in part. Lord Justice Gage, giving the judgment of the court, held that the total fines of £620,000 were manifestly excessive. The total was reduced to £460,000. The costs order was left undisturbed.

1. A judge may impose separate fines for separate offences, rather than one fine for the most serious count. That course is not wrong in principle. Whichever course is adopted, however, the judge must avoid double counting and ensure that the total sentence is not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge had properly identified the serious and prolonged risks, the company’s careless and irresponsible approach to safety, the death and serious injury, and the mitigating features. Those included the guilty pleas, remorse, absence of previous convictions and substantial post-accident improvements. The company did not contend that it could not afford a substantial fine.

3. The court endorsed the observation in R v Colthrope Board Mills Ltd [2002] EWCA Crim 520 that £500,000 in an employee-death case was not a fixed maximum. It was neither a ceiling nor a floor. On the authorities and circumstances of this case, the £600,000 pre-plea starting point for the principal offence was nevertheless too high.

4. The fine for the principal employee-safety offence was quashed and replaced with £360,000, calculated from a £450,000 starting point less 20% for the guilty plea. The fine for the risk-assessment count was quashed because that count was subsumed within the confined-space-system count. The £50,000 fines for each remaining confined-space count were retained.

5. The order requiring the company to pay £80,000 towards prosecution costs was within the sentencing judge’s discretion. No order for the costs of the appeal was made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The company appealed by leave of the Single Judge against fines totalling £620,000 and an order to pay £80,000 prosecution costs. The appeal was allowed in part: the fines were reduced to £460,000, but the costs order was upheld.
• Sentencing court. On 24 July 2007, following guilty pleas to two health and safety counts and convictions on two further counts, the company was fined a total of £620,000.