LFH Moonfleet Manor Limited v R

When sentencing an organisation for a health and safety offence, the court may consider evidence of its failure to heed safety warnings where that evidence was relevant to the offence of conviction, even though it also featured in a separately charged offence of which it was acquitted.

Under the sentencing guideline for organisations, turnover at the lower end of the range for a small organisation does not itself require a reduction at the proportionality stage. The fine must fairly reflect the breach and the objectives of punishment, deterrence and removal of gain, and must have a real economic impact.

LFH Moonfleet Manor Limited, which operated a hotel, was convicted at Bournemouth Crown Court of an offence under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. A child suffered a serious head injury after a slate fell from the hotel roof during works.

The company was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs. It appealed against sentence, contending that the judge had wrongly relied on its response to safety concerns despite its acquittal on a separate project-management count, and that its relatively low turnover required a further reduction in the fine.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the appellant’s failure to heed repeated warnings about pedestrians using the route beside the scaffolding as relevant to the offence of conviction.

2. The acquittal on the separate count concerning arrangements for managing construction work did not confine the evidence relevant to the count under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The counts concerned different allegations. The appellant could have made suitable construction-management arrangements by appointing a principal designer and contractor, yet still fail to run the hotel so that guests and visitors were not exposed to risk.

3. The evidence supported the judge’s finding of medium culpability. It also supported the finding that permitting guests to continue using the exposed route created a high likelihood of harm. Those findings justified the category 1 assessment and the upward adjustment to a £200,000 fine at step 2 of the guideline.

4. At step 3, proportionality required consideration of the offender’s means, including turnover. A turnover towards the bottom of the range for a small organisation did not automatically require a lower fine. The fine had to reflect the extent of the breach and fairly serve punishment, deterrence and removal of gain. It also had to have a real economic impact on management and shareholders. The appellant’s profits and losses did not require a reduction at steps 3 or 4, and the fine was proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth: The appellant was convicted of an offence under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and fined £200,000, with costs of £143,482.04.