High Fines for Regulatory Offences

United Kingdom

Politicians and pressure groups have for many years complained at the seemingly low levels of fines imposed by Courts dealing with regulatory offences - especially those concerning safety such as defective products and Health and Safety at Work Act offences. In November 1998 in the case of R v F Howe & Son Ltd the Court of Appeal decided a fresh view was needed sentencing companies for this type of offence.

Historical average fines are no longer to be treated as a yardstick. Offences are to be looked at individually - the critical factors being the gravity of the offence, extent of danger, whether there was a continuing unsafe state of affairs rather than an isolated incident, and the seriousness of injury involved. There are signs, though, that the defendant’s ability to pay could become the dominant criterion in sentencing companies. Since the Court of Appeal decision fines have been levied in some cases of £500,000 and £1.2m. In a further case heard in June (R v Brintons Limited) the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against a £100,000 fine, stressing the need for fines to be high enough to make a difference to companies and all concerned sit up and take notice.

Previously, many companies would weigh up the vitally low level of any fine in a regulatory prosecution against the typically substantial costs that are involved in fighting the case. In the current environment of unpredictable fine levels more companies are beginning to look more closely at the details of any possible defence. Quite simply, the changing cost/benefit ratio in these cases means that the courts are likely to have to deal with more defended prosecutions.