The appellant, Yorkshire Sheeting, had been retained as a subcontractor by Totty Building Services to deal with the sheeting on the roof at commercial premises at Foss Island Road, York. The works contemplated included the replacement of the metal top sheets on the roof and replacement of existing roof lights. One of the self-employed roof gangers hired to carry out the works fell through an uncovered roof light while dragging sheeting backwards and was killed by his fall on to the concrete floor 6 m below. A prosecution was brought against both Totty and Yorkshire Sheeting and both pleaded guilty to an offence framed in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in that their "undertaking was not conducted in such a way as to ensure, so far as reasonably practical, the safety of persons not in [their] direct employment". The judge decided that Yorkshire Sheeting carried "the lion’s share of the blame" and that its failings were "manifest, conspicuous and cumulative. A sure receipt for disaster …". He fined Yorkshire Sheeting £100,000 and ordered it to pay prosecution costs of £8,950.00. Totty was fined just £10,000.00 and ordered to pay fewer costs.
Yorkshire Sheeting argued on appeal that the judge erred in his approach to sentencing, and as a result imposed a fine that was manifestly excessive. In particular, it was argued on its behalf that the death was the single aggravating factor, and that there were a significant number of mitigating factors.

Reference

The Court of Appeal held that "the true nature of the sentencing exercise … was to assess the degree of culpability and criminality on the part of the appellant by reference to the offence charged". The court reduced the £100,000 fine to £60,000, and further reduced it to £55,000 to reflect the level of the costs award against the appellant.

For further information, call Tony Francis or Nicholas Gould on 0207 956 9354

Postscript

The judge had approached the issue of setting the fine by analogy with allocating liability in civil proceedings. He decided on an appropriate level of fine overall, and allocated it between the appellant and its co-defendant roughly 90% to 10%. The Court of Appeal took the view that the failure to ensure safety on site in this case "was to a significant extent due to a lack of liaison between all those involved". Hence in sentencing, the judge should have taken account of "the totality of the failings of all those – corporations and individuals – involved and not simply the appellant itself". The message from the court seems to be that if a party falls foul of the health and safety legislation and serious consequences ensue such as the death of a worker, then the court must NOT consider the seriousness of those consequences, come up with a fine commensurate with them, and apportion this fine between whatever defendants happen to be prosecuted over the matter. A guilty party is to be punished for the extent of its own criminality, taking into account such mitigating factors as exist (following the guidelines set out in the case of F Howe & Son (Engineers) Limited [1999] 2 All ER 249), and each case must be decided by reference to its own circumstances.