Legal Updates

First corporate manslaughter conviction and sentence upheld by Court of Appeal

Following the conviction of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd in February 2011 (the first company to be prosecuted and convicted of corporate manslaughter under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007), the company’s appeal against conviction and sentence was heard this morning by the Court of Appeal. The case was brought following the death of Alexander Wright on 5 September 2008 who was killed while collecting soil samples in a trench which collapsed on him. The company was fined £385,000.

(The following is reproduced courtesy of QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers whose members Mark Ellison QC and Adrian Darbishire appeared for the prosecution in the trial and the appeal.)

“This morning the Court of Appeal refused an application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed in the first statutory corporate manslaughter case. The Lord Chief Justice said that the applicant's arguments did not show any possible basis for criticising the way in which the judge had approached the question of whether it was unfair to try the company in the absence of its Managing Director, who was too ill to participate in the proceedings. As far as sentence was concerned, the fine imposed was appropriate. To limit a fine to the level which this company was capable of paying would have resulted in a "ludicrous" penalty. The trial judge correctly applied the sentencing guidelines, had regard to the need to consider the means of the company, but also had regard to the recognition in the guidelines that, in some cases, putting the company out of business may be inevitable, as it was in this case.”

The Court of Appeal judgment on the sentence sends a clear message: if a company is convicted of corporate manslaughter it can expect a fine in the region of £500,000 - whether or not it can afford it. And if that puts it out of business then that's too bad. This is a new direction for courts which have previously adhered to the principle that a fine should be no greater than a defendant's resources.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Grimes.