• GL
Choose your location?
  • Global Global
  • Australia
  • France
  • Germany
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Poland
  • Qatar
  • Spain
  • UAE
  • UK

Corporate Crime Analysis: Distorted sentencing exercise

24 September 2018
Pensions
Did a judge stray into the facts of the count on which no evidence had been offered and venture outside the indictment period? Simon Belfield, Director of Regulatory, Compliance and Investigations looks at a case which serves as a reminder of the need for care when tendering and accepting a basis of plea.

This article was originally written for Lexis Nexis, 25/04/2018 

R (on the application of Health and Safety Executive ) v ATE Truck & Trailer Sales Ltd [2018] EWCA Crim 752, [2018] All ER (D) 47 (Apr)

What are the practical implications of this case?

In reducing the level of fine from £475,000 to £200,000, the Court of Appeal undertook an analysis exercise of the Sentencing Guidelines constrained by a very narrow basis of plea. In so doing, it
noted that the Crown Court judge sentenced ATE on facts that were outside the basis of plea, and also where there was agreement from both experienced prosecution and defence counsel.

The case highlights the need for practitioners to be very careful when tendering and agreeing a basis of plea. It also highlights the need for judges to be very clear upon the basis they are sentencing the defendant when looking at the Sentencing Guidelines, albeit they should not be ‘straightjacketed’ by the guidelines. Practitioners should be wary that agreed basis of pleas are not binding on the court, although sensible agreement is to be encouraged between parties in this area and can be ‘expected to be weighed carefully by any court before departing from it’.

The case gives further prominence to the features highlighted in R (upon the prosecution of HM Inspectors of Health and Safety) v Whirlpool UK Appliances Ltd [2017] EWCA Crim 2186, [2017] All
ER (D) 124 (Dec) and R v Thames Water Utilities [2015] EWCA Crim 960, [2015] All ER (D) 31 (Jun), namely the need to move up a harm category and towards the top of the range of that
category when considering a case where the breach has ‘caused’ the death (Step 1—harm 2(ii)) and reflecting the need for a real economic impact to bring home the appropriate message to the
defendant (steps 3 and 4).

What was the background?

ATE pleaded guilty to failing to provide a suitable and sufficient risk assessment as required by regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3242. No evidence was offered to a further and wider charge under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 1974).

Download the full article

Further Reading

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set when you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Manage your cookies

Our use of cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set when you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.

Necessary cookies

(Required)

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

These cookies are required

Tracking cookies

Anonymous cookies that help us understand the performance of our website and how we can improve the website experience for our users. Some of these may be set by third parties we trust, such as Google Analytics.

They may also be used to personalise your experience on our website by remembering your preferences and settings.

Marketing cookies

These cookies are used to improve and personalise your experience with our brands. We may use these cookies to show adverts for our products, or measure the performance of our adverts.