Holtom, R. v

In sentencing for workplace gross-negligence manslaughter, the court must assess all aggravating and mitigating circumstances and give appropriate weight to the fatal consequences of the offence. A serious failure to supervise inexperienced workers carrying out an inherently dangerous task, particularly after danger has been reported, may justify an immediate custodial sentence despite good character, age, remorse and a guilty plea. Comparisons with sentences in other fatal workplace cases require caution because the facts may differ materially.

The appellant, a groundwork and landscaping contractor, pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to the gross-negligence manslaughter of a 15-year-old casual worker. He admitted breaching his duty of care by failing to provide adequate supervision for the demolition of an unstable brick wall.

The appellant denied instructing the deceased to go behind or push the wall. No Newton hearing was held, and the sentencing judge therefore proceeded without resolving that issue. The judge imposed three years’ imprisonment, allowing credit for the guilty plea and good character.

The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the starting point was excessive for manslaughter by omission and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The three-year sentence was a justifiably severe sentence for gross-negligence manslaughter.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the appellant’s failings as exceptionally grave. He had left workers aged 18 and 15 unsupervised to demolish a wall which he knew was unstable and inherently dangerous. When told that the wall was leaning, he did not go to the scene to assess and control the danger. The unresolved dispute about whether he instructed the deceased to go behind the wall did not reduce the seriousness of that admitted failure.

3. The deceased’s age was a substantial aggravating feature. He should not have been employed save in strictly regulated circumstances. The appellant’s good character, age, remorse and guilty plea were relevant mitigation, but did not make the custodial starting point excessive.

4. The court accepted that earlier fatal-workplace cases had resulted in shorter sentences, but their facts differed materially. It also applied the sentencing consideration explained in R v Appleby and Others [2009] EWCA Crim 2693: greater weight is now given to the fatal consequences of criminal conduct in homicide sentencing. That consideration equally applies to gross-negligence manslaughter in the workplace.

5. The Definitive Guideline on Corporate Manslaughter and Health and Safety Offences Causing Death concerned organisations and financial penalties. Nevertheless, it usefully identified factors bearing on seriousness, aggravation and mitigation. The judge had properly taken account of those factors. A starting point of four years, reduced to three years for the guilty plea, disclosed no error in principle or excess.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2010] EWCA Crim 934, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Central Criminal Court — on 20 July 2009, following a guilty plea to gross-negligence manslaughter, imposed three years’ imprisonment.