Health And Safety Prosecutions In Criminal Law
⚖️ Health and Safety Prosecutions in Criminal Law: Overview
Health and safety prosecutions arise when an individual or organisation fails to comply with legal duties to protect workers, the public, or others from harm. These duties are governed primarily by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) and related regulations such as:
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
Key Offences Under HSWA:
Section 2 – Duty of employers to ensure safety of employees.
Section 3 – Duty to non-employees (e.g., visitors, contractors).
Section 37 – Personal liability of directors or managers.
Section 33 – Lists offences including failure to comply with duties or enforcement notices.
Penalties Can Include:
Unlimited fines
Imprisonment (for individuals)
Disqualification of company directors
Corporate manslaughter charges where applicable
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law in Health and Safety Prosecutions
1. R v. Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 All ER 249 (CA)
Facts:
A worker died while using a piece of machinery that had not been properly maintained. There were no safety guards in place, and prior warnings had been ignored.
Legal Issue:
Whether a company could be prosecuted under Section 2 of HSWA for failing to ensure employee safety.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court of Appeal held that the company had breached a duty of care by not having a safe system of work.
The offence was strict liability—intent or knowledge was not necessary.
Outcome:
The company was convicted and fined. The case emphasized that employers must actively assess and manage risks.
2. R v. British Steel plc [1995] 1 WLR 1356
Facts:
A contractor was killed at a British Steel site after a lack of coordination between contractors and poor safety arrangements.
Legal Issue:
Can a large organisation be guilty of health and safety breaches where systemic failures caused death?
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found British Steel guilty under Section 3 HSWA for failing to protect non-employees.
It ruled that large corporations must integrate safety protocols into their operations.
Outcome:
Convicted and fined. Demonstrated that outsourcing does not remove responsibility for safety.
3. Health and Safety Executive v. C.RO Ports London Ltd (2012)
Facts:
An employee was seriously injured while operating machinery in poor lighting conditions. Safety assessments had not been updated, and training was lacking.
Legal Issue:
Failure to carry out suitable risk assessments and provide safe working conditions.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found breaches under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
Emphasised the importance of regular risk assessments and adequate training.
Outcome:
The company was fined £200,000. Reinforced the legal duty to continually assess workplace hazards.
4. R v. Tangerine Confectionery Ltd and R v. AAK UK Ltd (2011) EWCA Crim 2015
Facts:
Two separate companies were prosecuted after workers were killed in separate incidents involving inadequate safety measures during maintenance work.
Legal Issue:
Whether directors/managers can be personally liable under Section 37 of HSWA.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court upheld convictions and stated that directors can be personally responsible if the offence was committed with their consent, connivance or neglect.
Lack of safety culture at the top levels was decisive.
Outcome:
Both companies fined. Set a clear precedent for personal criminal liability of management.
5. R v. Chargot Ltd (T/A Contract Services) [2008] UKHL 73
Facts:
A worker died after falling into an unguarded excavation site. The company argued that the risk was not foreseeable.
Legal Issue:
Whether foreseeability of risk is relevant when prosecuting under HSWA.
Court’s Reasoning:
The House of Lords held that it is not necessary to prove foreseeability of the risk—duty exists regardless of knowledge.
The burden shifts to the defendant to show they took all reasonably practicable steps.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld. This case clarified the strict liability nature of health and safety offences.
6. R v. Porter [2008] EWCA Crim 1271
Facts:
The headmaster of a private school was charged after a child died during a school trip. The prosecution alleged breach of duty under Section 3.
Legal Issue:
Whether a gross breach of duty by an individual could lead to personal criminal liability.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court of Appeal held that "reasonable practicability" must be carefully considered.
Porter was acquitted because he had taken reasonable precautions.
Outcome:
Demonstrated that not all accidents lead to criminal liability, particularly where duty of care was met.
7. HSE v. Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd (2015) (Alton Towers Crash)
Facts:
In 2015, a serious rollercoaster crash at Alton Towers left several people seriously injured, including two who had leg amputations.
Legal Issue:
Prosecution under HSWA for failures in risk management and safety procedures.
Court’s Reasoning:
Merlin pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 of HSWA.
The court noted a catastrophic failure in management, where known faults were ignored.
Outcome:
Fined £5 million—one of the largest fines ever under HSWA. Highlighted the seriousness of public safety breaches.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Key Legal Issue | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Howe & Son (1999) | Failure to maintain safe machinery | Strict liability confirmed for employer safety |
| R v. British Steel plc (1995) | Systemic failure causing contractor death | Employer liable for non-employees |
| HSE v. C.RO Ports (2012) | Inadequate risk assessments, training | Reaffirmed need for continuous risk assessment |
| R v. Tangerine & AAK (2011) | Personal liability of directors | Management can be criminally liable |
| R v. Chargot (2008) | Foreseeability vs. strict liability | No need to prove foreseeability under HSWA |
| R v. Porter (2008) | Personal responsibility and reasonable precautions | Not all breaches lead to prosecution |
| HSE v. Merlin Attractions (2015) | Failure of public safety measures | One of the highest HSWA fines imposed |
✅ Conclusion
Health and safety law in the UK imposes strict, proactive duties on employers and individuals in positions of responsibility. The case law reflects key principles:
Strict liability: Prosecution doesn’t need to prove intent.
Reasonable practicability: Defendants must show they took all feasible steps to prevent harm.
Individual liability: Managers/directors can be prosecuted.
Wider duties: Employers owe duties not just to employees but to the public and contractors.
These cases demonstrate that failure to comply with health and safety obligations can result in substantial fines, reputational damage, and even imprisonment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments