ABSTRACT
The case came to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, because the appellant employer contended that the fine, amounting to £48,000 (with a further £7,500 costs) imposed by the trial judge in the Crown Court at Bristol, was excessive. The appellant had been convicted on a number of counts under the 1974 Act, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992. The prosecution came about as a result of the death by electrocution of an employee of the appellant. At the time of the fatal accident, the employee was cleaning the appellant’s factory. The cleaning operation caused a lot of water to accumulate on the floor. A vacuum machine (a Freddy) was used to remove the water. The appellant had purchased the cleaner second hand. It became live while the employee was holding it. The employee was certified dead on arrival at hospital. The inspector who visited the premises after the accident found that the immediate cause of the accident was that the cable to the machine was damaged. This damage would have been visible on inspection prior to the accident. In addition the wall-mounted socket into which the 13 amp cable was plugged was fitted with 32 amp fuses which had been bridged by fuse wire! It was evident that the circuit breaker (RDC) had been deliberately interfered with to render it inoperable. A fitter, employed by electrical contractors, who had done work at the premises on a number of occasions, had advised the appellant that the supply was overloaded. There was a dispute between the appellant and the fitter as to who had disabled the RDC. At the trial the prosecution accepted the appellant’s plea of not guilty of interfering with the RDC and sentencing was on that basis. However, in giving judgment in the appeal, Scott Baker J noted that the appellant had failed to check whether the system was working. He also noted that the company was a small one, making a net profit of approximately £27,000 pa. It paid no dividends and neither of the working directors received more than £20,000 pa salary, though they, like the employees, received a Christmas bonus. There was no pension scheme and no company car. Following the accident, the appellant had spent £15,000 on a complete overhaul of its electrical system. Scott Baker J continued at p 263:
We are not persuaded that the size of the company and its lack of ability to provide its own specialist safety and electrical personnel mitigates these offences. The means of the company is, on the other hand a very material factor to the amount of the fine. As to the level of fines imposed generally for
offences of this nature, it is the view of each member of this court that they are too low and therefore not an appropriate yardstick for determining the level of fine in the present case.
