Health & Safety bulletin- February 2016

This month includes:

1. Fines for Corporate Manslaughter and Health & Safety offences look set to increase dramatically

2. Baldwin’sCraneHirefined£700,000overCorporateManslaughter

3. Gateinstallationfirmfined£50,000forCorporateManslaughter

4. Companyfinedandtwodirectorsgetsuspendedprisonsentencesafter telehandler death

5. £1millionfineforThamesWaterUtilitiesLtd

6. RecordfineforTotalfollowingNorthSeaGasLeak

7. Brexit–WhatwillitmeanforEnvironmentalRegulation?

8. ClimateChangeLitigation

9. BetterCaseManagement–What’sitallabout?

Fines for Corporate Manslaughter and Health & Safety offences look set to increase dramatically

From1February2016anewDefinitiveGuidelineoftheSentencing Council on Health andSafetyOffences,CorporateManslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences will come into effect.

Thecurrentpositionforthesentencingofhealth and safety offences is that there is no set penalty or tariff in place and courts considereachcaseonanindividualbasis.

Whilsttherehasbeenadefinitiveguidelineavailableinrelationtocorporatemanslaughterand health and safety offences which caused deathsinceFebruary2010,therearenosuchguidelines to assist the courts in sentencing other health and safety offences consistently.

ThesituationequallyhasnotbeenimprovedbythefactthattherearerelativelyfewhealthandsafetycasesthatappearbeforetheCriminal Courts as compared to traditional cases(e.g.Assault,ABH,GBH,Rape,Murderetc).AsaresultoftheconsequentinfrequencywithwhichMagistratesandJudgessentencehealthandsafetycases,therecanalsobealackoffamiliaritywiththem.

Furthermore,foroffencescommittedonorafter12March2015,Magistratesnowhavethepowertoimposeunlimitedfinesforcertainoffences,includinghealthandsafetyandfoodsafetyandhygieneoffences,thereforethe need for guidance to assist Magistrates in applying fair and proportionate sentences isevenmorenecessaryinlightofthesenewsentencing powers.

ThenewDefinitiveGuidelineoftheSentencingCouncilonHealthandSafetyOffences,Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety & Hygiene Offences will apply to any matter that fallstobesentencedonorafter1February2016,regardlessofwhentheoffencewascommitted.

Inadditiontoachievinggreaterconsistency,itisclearthattheDefinitiveGuidelinewillgenerallyresultinmuchgreaterfinesbeingimposed.Thekeyobjectivesoftheseguidelines are deterrence and the protection of thepublic.

“Theobjectiveofprosecutionsforhealthandsafetyoffencesintheworkplaceistoachieveasafeenvironmentforthosewhoworkthereandforothermembersofthepublicwhomaybeaffected.

Afineneedstobelargeenoughtobringthatmessage home where the defendant is a companynotonlytothosewhomanageitbutalso to its shareholders.”

Health and Safety Offences

Indeterminingsentence,theCourtmustinitiallyhaveregardto(a)culpabilityand(b)harm.Therearefourcategoriesofculpability:

1. Low-minorfailingsoccurredasanisolatedincident,ortheoffenderdidnotfall far short of the appropriate standard;

2. Medium–systems,forexample,wereinplacebutthesewerenotsufficientlyadhered to or implemented;

3. High-offenderfellfarshortoftheappropriate standard (e.g. failing to put in place measures that are recognised standards in the industry; ignoring concernsraisedbyemployeesorothers;allowingbreachestosubsistoveralongperiod of time); or

4. VeryHigh-deliberatebreachorflagrantdisregard for the law.

Thecourtmustthenconsidertheriskofharmcreatedbytheoffence.Thisamountstoashiftof emphasis to focus more on the risks rather thantheconsequencesofoffending.Theriskofharmisaddressedbythecourtconsideringthe seriousness of the harm risked and the likelihood of the harm arising.

Inaddition,thenumberofworkersormembersofthepublicexposedtotheriskofharmwillbearelevantaggravatingfactorthatmayresultinthecourtmovingupaharmcategoryorsubstantiallymovingupwithinthecategoryrange.Thiswillalsobethecase in relation to whether the offence was asignificantcauseofactualharm(i.e.morethanminimallycontributed,thoughitdoesnothavetobetheprincipalcause).

ForOrganisations,thecourtwillfocusontheannualturnoverorequivalenttodeterminetheappropriatestartingpointforafine(whichwouldbeadjustedinaccordancewithrelevantaggravatingandmitigatingfeatures).

Otherfinancialinformationsuchasprofitbeforetax,directors’remuneration,loanaccountsandpensionprovisionandassetsdisclosedbythebalancesheetmayalsobefactors the court considers to ensure that the proposedfineisproportionate.

Corporate Manslaughter

ThenewDefinitiveGuidelinewillreplacetheprevious2010DefinitiveGuideline;fromFebruary2015thesentencingrangewillbe£180,000-£20millionfine.Theprevioussentencingguidelinesstatedthat‘theappropriatefinewillseldombelessthan£500,000andmaybemeasuredinmillions of pounds’.

Theimplementationofthesenewguidelinesnowprovidesbusinesseswithevenmorereason to ensure that Health and Safety becomesapriority.Toassistbusinesseswithcompliance,WeightmansLLPhasrecentlylaunchedanew‘BoardroomTrainingService’whichprovidesbespoketrainingforbothexperienceddirectorsandseniormanagerswho need to maintain their awareness of legal developments,andalsoforthosewhoarenewly-appointedandneedtogetup-to-speedwiththeirnewresponsibilities.TheBoardroomTrainingServiceisdesignedtobeentirelyflexibleintermsofbothitscontentandtheformatofitsdelivery,andcoversawidevarietyofkeyissues,including:

• Directors’ statutory duties

• Health & safety law

• Environmentalincidents

Inadditionitalsocoverswiderissueswhichmightaffectyourbusinessincluding:

• Pensionlawanddealingswithpensiontrustees

• Employmentlaw

• Data protection and information security

• Business crime

• Competition law

• Procurementlawandtenders

• ProductLiability

• Avoidinglitigation(identifyingthemostcommon causes of disputes in commercial agreements)

• BankingandFinancelaw,andwhattoexpectwhenfinancingaproject

• Taxationissues

• Estateplanningforbusinessownersandseniorexecutives

Youmaychooseanycombinationoftopics(whetherornotlistedabove),baseduponyourparticularneeds.Thetrainingcanbedeliveredinbite-sizedchunksaspartofBoardroom/senior management away day sessionsor,alternatively,canbedeliveredin half or full day sessions. For further informationpleasecontact:

CrispinKenyon–Partner– crispin.kenyon@weightmans.com 02078227151

Baldwin’s Crane Hire fined £700,000 over Corporate Manslaughter

Afirmwhichwasconvictedof corporate manslaughter following the death of one ofitsemployeeshasbeensentencedandreceivedafineof£700,000pluscostsof£200,000atPrestonCrownCourton22December2015.

Baldwin’sCraneHireLtdwereprosecutedafterthebrakesona130-tonnecranebeingdrivenby49-year-oldcranedriverLindsayEastonfailed,causing it to lose control on a steep access road andcrashintoabankofearth15August2011.MrEastondiedfrommultipleinjuriescausedbythefrontofthevehiclebeingcrushed.

AsubsequentjointinvestigationbyLancashirePoliceHealthandSafetyExecutivefoundthatonly“limitedbrakingforce”waspossibleduetoseveralwheelbrakesbeinginoperableordamaged,forwhichthecompanywereheldresponsible.Othervehiclesinspectedacrossthefleetrevealed‘significantissues’ofthebrakesonothercranes.Thejuryalsofoundthatotherroadusershadbeenputatriskduetopoormaintenanceofthecompany’svehicles.

ACrownProsecutionServicespokesmancommented:“Followingfurtherinvestigationsofthecompany’sfleetseveralcraneswerefoundtohavefaultswiththeirbrakesorotheroperatingsystems.Hadthecompanyservicedandmaintainedthevehicles,thisaccidentwouldneverhavehappened.MrEastonputhissafety in the hands of his employer and they failed him.”

Gate installation firm fined £50,000 for the Corporate Manslaughter

Herfamily,residentsandtheemergencyservicestriedtofreeher,butthegatewasstuck in the closed position. It was only when themotorwassmashedthatthegategaveway and she was released. She was taken to hospitalbutlaterdied.

ThesoledirectorofCheshireGatesandAutomation,KristonKearns,andoneofhisemployeesinstalledthegate,whichopenedonto Maine Road in the Moss Side area of the city. Manchester Crown Court heard that the gateshouldhavestoppedandreversedwhenitdetectedanobstruction,buttheprogrammingcarriedoutbyKearnshadleftitwithoutalimitontheforceitexertedandunabletodetectandpullbackfromobstaclesitencountered.

Cheshire Gates and Automation pleaded guilty tobreachingtheCorporateManslaughterandCorporateHomicideActon17November2015.

Sentencingthefirmon7December,thejudgealsoorderedittoadvertisetheconvictionintheManchesterEveningNewsandtheStockportExpress.

Sincetheincident,Semelia’sfamilyhavecampaignedtohaveanti-crushmechanismsfittedtoautomaticgates.InSeptember2010theyhandedaletterto10DowningStreetcallingonthe prime minister to support their campaign.

It is the third health and safety prosecution involvingthefatalityofachildinelectricgatesinthelasttenyears.MaintenancefirmsJohnGlen(InstallationServices)andTremorfawerefinedatotalof£110,000inJunelastyearafterfive-year-oldKarolinaGolabekwascrushedbyapoweredgateinBridgend,Wales.

SemeliaCampbelldiedoutside her home in Maine Place,Manchester,on28June2010afterthegatefailed to detect that she was in its path. It trapped her against a wall with a force ofaround250kg.

Company fined and two directors get suspended prison sentences after telehandler death

A landscaping company and its two directors were sentenced afterRussellMeech,a27yearold landscape gardener was killed when he fell under the wheels of a telehandler.

StAlbansCrownCourtheardhowon18June2013RussellMeechwasworkingforWooburnLandscapesLimitedofHighWycombeataconstructionsiteat“HighTrees”,LeggettsPark,PottersBar.Thecompanywascontractedtounloadandplanttreesonthesite.Thisincludedmovingtreesfromanarctictraileronehundredyardstotherequiredareaofthesite.

Thetreesweremovedacrossthesiteusingatelehandlerandstrap.ThismethodresultedinthetreesbeingunstableandMrMeechwalkedin front of the telehandler holding the tree atthestemtostabiliseit.Itwasduringthisoperation that Russell Meech tripped and fell under the wheel of the telehandler suffering fatalinjuries.Hediedatthescene.

AninvestigationbytheHSEintotheincident,found that the company was not following a safesystemofwork.Theoperationtomovethetreeshadnotbeenplannedinsufficientdetailtoensurethatitcouldbecarriedoutsafely.

WooburnLandscapesLimited,ofWhitepitLane,FlackwellHeath,HighWycombe,wasfinedatotalof£50,000withfullcostsof£9,680afterpleading guilty to an offence under Section 2 of theHealthandSafetyatWorketcAct1974.

AndrewSchofieldofGerraldsRoad,HighWycombe,Buckinghamshirepledguiltytoanoffenceundersection37oftheHealthandSafetyatWorketc.Act1974andwasgivenafourandahalfmonthsprisonsentence,suspendedforeighteenmonthsand250hoursofunpaidcommunityservice.

MarkSchofieldofThornabyPlace,WooburnGreen,Buckinghamshirepledguiltytoanoffenceundersection37oftheHealthandSafetyatWorketc.Act1974andwasgivenafourandahalfmonthsprisonsentence,suspendedforeighteenmonthsand250hoursofunpaidcommunityservice.

£1 million fine for Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Theoffencesrelatedtodischargesin2012and2013intotheGrandUnionCanalfromasewage treatment works.

Ifweassumethatthe£1mfinewasmadeupof£500,000.00inrespectofeachofthetwooffences and that a one third reduction for an earlyguiltypleawasappliedtobothamounts,thentheoriginalfinesperoffencepriortothereductionwouldhavebeen£665,000-£1.33mforbothoffences.

£565,000isatthelowerendofthescaleforanorganisationsuchasThames.ThatisbecauseThameswouldbeconsideredaVeryLargeOrganisationtherebygivingthecourtsthefreedomtomoveoutsidetheframeworkprovidedforintheGuidelineandmovebeyondthe£3mupperlimitforeachoffence.

Wesuspectthisreflectssomeofthesentencing comments which suggest there was limitedenvironmentaldamage,thatThamesfullycooperatedwiththeEAandthattheyhavesubsequentlyinvestedinpreventativemeasurestopreventarecurrence.

Thefirst£1mfineisinlinewiththecommentsoftheCourtofAppealinthe2015ThamesWatercaseinwhichthecourtsuggestedfinesforVLOscouldbe£100m+.Nowthe£1mglassceilinghasbeenbrokenweexpecttoseemore£mfinesforVLOsandresultingincreasesinfinesforsmall,mediumandlargecompaniesaswell(thebracketsbelowVLO).

On4January2016StAlbansCrownCourtorderedThamestopaya£1mfinein respect of two offences undertheEnvironmentalPermittingRegulations2010.

Record fine for Total following North Sea gas leak

Oil and gas production company TotalE&PUKLtdhasbeenfinedarecord£1.125millionafteritadmitted failings that caused one ofthebiggestevergasleaksintheNorthSea.

Totaladmittedtheleakhappenedaftermiscalculating a plan designed to ‘kill’ an unstablegaswellontheplatform.

On25March2012,therewasasuddenanduncontrolledreleaseofgasandcondensate,whichcreatedarealriskoffireorexplosionon the platform. All 238 personnel were safely evacuated.Theneighbouringplatformswereshut down and a two mile shipping and aircraft exclusionzonewasimposedaroundtheElgin.Ittook51daysforthewelltobebroughtundercontrol,allowingmorethan6,000tonnesandgascondensatetobereleased,equivalenttomorethan300roadtankers.

TotalE&PLtdpleadedguiltytobreachingRegulation13(1)(a)and(b)oftheOffshoreInstallationsandWells(DesignandConstruction,etc)Regulations1996andSection33(1)oftheHealthandSafetyatWorkAct1974,atAberdeenSheriffCourt.

TheSheriff’scourtwastoldthatTotalhadbeenexperiencingproblemsofhighpressure

gas leaking into the affected well for some time.On25February2012,thewellsufferedaseriesofcasingfailures,whichTotalcorrectlyrespondedtobybeginningawellkilloperationonthe15March.However,Totalfailedtoidentifyandimplementsufficientcontrol measures and control of the well was progressivelylostuntil,onthe25March2012,the well failed.

HSEOperationsManagerRussellBreen,said:“Thisincidentwasforeseeableandentirelypreventable.TherewereanumberoffailuresonthepartofTotal,whichcontributedtotheblowout.Theyfailedtoproperlycalculatetheweightofkillfluidrequired;departedfromtheproposed well kill plan without considering relevantcontingencyarrangementsandreliedon an untested assumption that a sudden uncontrolled release at the wellhead could notoccur.Allofthesecontributedtothemlosing control of the well and the sudden uncontrolled release of gas. Industry must learnfromthis,itisanimportantreminderoftheever-presenthazardswithoilandgasproductionandtheneedforthemtoberigorouslymanaged.Thiscouldhaveeasilyledto loss of life.”

ElisabethProust,managingdirectorofTotalE&PUK,saidafterthecase:“WeregretthegasleakfromtheElginplatformin2012andacceptthefinehandeddownbythecourt.FollowingtheincidentTotalcarriedoutits

owninvestigationtoidentifythecausesoftheincidentandwhatcanbedonetopreventsimilarincidentsinfuture.WealsocooperatedfullywiththeinvestigationscarriedoutbyDECCandtheHSE.Furthermore,Totalhasshared the lessons learned from this incident widely across the industry and with the authorities.”

Brexit – What will it mean for Environmental Regulation?

AllthesignsarethatanEUreferendum will happen in this calendaryearpossiblyasearlyasJune,butmorelikelyinSeptember.

AlthoughtheGovernmenthasuntiltheendof2017,ifDavidCameroncanwinsomeconcessionsfromhisEUcounterpartshewillnotwasteanytime in calling a referendum.

WhatwouldaBrexitmeanforenvironmentalregulation?LastyearweunderstoodthatDEFRAhadanongoingprojecttoexaminethepossibleimpacts,however,thisyeartheyarerefusingtoconfirmordenywhetheritissomethingtheyarelooking at.

EitherwayitisclearthattherecouldbesignificantconsequencesarisingfromaBrexit.

Art50oftheLisbonTreaty(2007)providesthatMemberStatescanwithdrawfromEUinaccordancewithownconstitutionalrequirements.IftheresultoftheUKreferendumistoleave,theUKGovernmentwouldnotifytheEuropeanCouncilandnegotiateitsexit.Theexitprocesswouldtakesometimetoresolve.

TherewouldbeanumberofavailablepathsfortheUKpostexit.Theseinclude:-

• RemainingamemberofEuropeanEconomicArea/EuropeanFreeTradeAssociation;or

• Pursuingitsownfreetradeagreements(i.e.go it alone); or

• DevelopownGlobalFreeTradeAssociation.

Itiswidelybelievedthatthefirstoptionisthemostlikely.TobeamemberoftheEEAand/orEFTA,theUKwouldneedtosubmittocomplywithcertainEUlawsanumberofwhichrelatetotheenvironment.Inthosecircumstances,theUKwouldhavelosttheabilitytoinfluencesuchlaws,butstillbesubjecttothem.

Otherspecificconsiderationsinclude:-

• InternationalagreementssuchastheUNFCCCandCOP21–theParisAgreement.SuchinternationalobligationswouldcontinuetoapplytotheUK.

• DirectlyapplicableEUcontrolse.g.TFSWRegulation.IntheabsenceofsuchcontrolstherewouldbealegislativegaptheUKwouldneedtofill.

• IndirectlyapplicablecontrolssuchasDirectiveswhichtheUKhastoimplementthrough its own legislation would continue to beeffectedthroughtheirUKequivalentbutanychangesanddevelopmentswouldnotbepicked up.

• DecisionsoftheCJEUwouldnotbebinding.

• TheUKwouldstillbesubjecttocontrolsthatapplytoactivitiesintheEU–e.g.EUETSandaviationandcontrolsthatapplytoproductssuppliedintotheEU–e.g.REACH.

TheUKGovernmenthashelpedtoshapeandinfluenceEUenvironmentalcontrolsformanyyears.ThelossoftheabilitytodosoandtheresultingimpactonthebodyofenvironmentalregulationintheUK,aswellastheongoingimpactofEUcontrolstotheUKanditsactivities,

meanswearebetterstayingintheEU;atleastfromanenvironmentalstandpoint.

Climate Change Litigation

2015sawtwointerestingcaseswhichresultedin a growing interest in phenomena of climate change litigation.

• UrgendaFoundationvTheStateoftheNetherlands(MinistryofInfrastructureandtheEnvironment)C/09/456689/HAZA13-1396June2015

• TheDutchGovernmentintroducedatargetthatprovidedfora17%GHGreductionby2020.Urgendasaidthetargetdidnotgofarenoughindealingwiththethreatofglobalwarmingandcalledforatargetof25%by2020and40%by2030.TheDutchcourtsagreedandorderedtheDutchGovernmenttoachieveincludeatargetof25%by2020.Asimilar case is pending in Belgium.

• R(ClientEarth)vSecretaryofStatefortheEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs[2015]UKSC28April2015

TheUKGovernmentfailedtoproperlyimplementtheEUAirQualityDirective2008.IthadfailedtomeetNOxlevelsbyJanuary2010andtotakecertainstepstopostponethe2015compliancedeadlineprovidedforintheDirective.TheSupremeCourtbelievedtherehadbeenabreachandreferredcertainquestionstotheCJEUwhoagreed.TheSupremeCourtorderedtheUKGovernmenttoresubmitnewairqualityplansby21Dec2015.TheUKGovernmentmissedthatdeadlinebutisintheprocessofpreparing the new plans.

TodaywehaveseenanannouncementfromClientEarththattheyaregoingtotakefurtheractionagainsttheUKGovernmentinlightofthefactthatthepollutionlevelsinLondonduringthefirst10daysof2016haveresultedinbreachesofthetotallimitsfor2016.

ThesecasesandthecommentstodayfromClientEarthareanindicationofthegrowingappetiteacrosstheEUforclimatechangelitigation.

Better Case Management – What’s it all about?

TheprincipalaimsofBCMaretobuildrobustcasemanagementrules,reducethenumberofhearingsthattakeplaceincourts,promotemaximumparticipationby(andcommunicationbetween)all parties within the system and ensure compliance with the CriminalProcedureRules.

SomeofthekeychangesbeingintroducedbyBCM,andtheconsequentchangestotheCriminalProcedureRulesmadeinOctober2015,are:

1. NewCriminalProcedureRule3.3(2),whichcreatesanexpandeddefinitionofhowpartiesareobligedto“activelyassist”thecourtby,amongotherthings,identifyingdisputed issues and communicating with one another at all times;

2. NewCriminalProcedureRules8.2&8.3,whichrequirethatInitialDetailsoftheProsecutionCase(IDPC)mustbeservedforalltypesofoffences,includingindictableonlyoffences.ThenewrulesalsocreateanexpandeddefinitionofIDPCwhichextendstowitnessstatementsandexhibitsthataprosecutorhasavailablewhicharematerialtoplea,allocationandsentence.IDPCmustbeprovidedbythe

Prosecutionnolaterthanthefirsthearingin the Magistrates Court;

3. EradicationofpreliminaryhearingsintheCrownCourt.InsteadtherewillnowbeaPleaandTrialPreparationHearing(PTPH)within28days(or,insomecourts,21days)ofacasebeingsenttotheCrownCourt,atwhichthedefendant’spleawouldordinarilybeentered.CompletionofanexpansivePTPHFormbyallpartieswillalsonowbemandatory;

4. A Further Case Management Hearing (FCMH) will now only take place in identifiedcomplexcasesorifaJudgedecidesthatitisnecessary.Therefore,ifnoFCMHisrequired,thenextcourtappearanceafterthePTPHwillbefortrial;

5. IntroductionofaDisclosureNotificationFormwhichmustbeserved7daysinadvanceofthePTPHfordocumentheavycases.ThereaftertheCPSwillregularlyreviewdisclosurebyupdatingaDisclosureManagement Document;

6. CriminalProcedureRule16.4abolishesthe7daytimelimitforobjectingtoSection9WitnessStatements;

7. CriminalProcedureRule19.2createsapositivedutyonexpertstoassistincasemanagement; and

8. CriminalProcedureRule3.5(2)(d)and4encourages electronic communications and web-baseddocumentdeliveryservices.

ThefocusofBCMisonstreamliningthejudicialprocessinordertoachieveaswifterresolutionofcases.AsaresultofBCM,instructionsandadviceonplea(includingcreditforanearlyguiltyplea)mustbesecuredwithinanacceleratedperiodoftimebetweenserviceofIDPCandthePTPH.

ItwillnolongerbepossibletowaitforserviceoftheProsecution’scasepriortoadefendanthavingtoenteraplea(the50and70daytimelimitsforservingthefullcasepapersaftersending remain the same).

AccordinglyunderthenewBCMsystem,adefendantwillthusberequiredtoattendaPTPHtoenterapleawithin28daysoftheircasebeingsenttotheCrownCourtand,inmanycases,thiswillbeonthebasisoflimitedevidentialmaterialfallingwithinthedefinitionofIDPC,andbeforetheProsecutionhasservedthefullcasepapersthatformitscaseagainstthedefendant–aslightlyworryingprospect.

One of the most glaring issues with the BCM system is that there are no enhanced sanctions to deal with parties who do not comply. For example,itremainsunclearastowhatwillhappenifIDPCisnotservedbeforeafirstMagistrates Court hearing or a Disclosure

NotificationFormisnotcompletedbyoneoftheparties.

No-onewoulddisputethatimprovingtheefficiencyoftheUKcriminaljusticesystemisdesired,however,inorderforBCMtostandachanceofbeingsuccessful;itwillrequireacomplete commitment from all parties to ensure that its rules are adhered to. It will therefore beveryinterestingtoseehowBCMwillworkinpractice.

Thank you for reading

www.lockton.com