Vue Cinema Chain fined following death of cinema-goer

12 August 2021

On 20 July 2021 Vue Entertainment Ltd (‘Vue’) was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay costs of £130,000 following a fatal accident at the Star City cinema in Birmingham on 9 March 2018.

Ateeq Rafiq, a 24 year old husband and father, suffered catastrophic brain injuries when his head and neck were trapped under an electronic footrest whilst he was trying to find his phone and keys at the end of a film. A fuse in the control box for the powered chair was found to have blown and the chair was also reportedly missing a bar which would have allowed the footrest to be lifted by hand. Mr Rafiq’s wife and staff struggled for 10 to 15 minutes to release him and after being taken to hospital he tragically died on 16 March 2018. 

An inquest in 2019 recorded a verdict of accidental death. The jury foreman commented that there had been “missed opportunities to undertake comprehensive safety checks of the chairs” and that “if the seat had been fitted and maintained in the correct manner, Mr Rafiq would not have died”.

In April 2021 Vue pleaded guilty to offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (‘the Act’) of failing to ensure that persons were not exposed to risk to their health and safety, contrary to section 3(1) of the Act, and failing to make suitable and sufficient risk assessment between the 1 January 2007 and 9 March 2018.

The sentencing guidelines (‘the Guidelines’) for organisations which have breached relevant health and safety legislation provide an indication of the process the court will have taken to arrive at this sentence.


The first step the court takes when determining the sentence is to consider the culpability of the offending organisation. This ranges from ‘very high’, where there is a deliberate breach, ‘high’, indicating systemic failings to address health and safety risks, ‘medium’, where systems were in place but not adhered to, and ‘low’ for minor failings.


Since health and safety offences are concerned with the failure to manage risk, the relevant offence is in respect of creating a risk of harm rather than of actually causing the harm itself. The Guidelines require a consideration of both the seriousness of harm risked, with risk of death defined as Level A, and of the likelihood of that harm arising, either as high, medium or low.

The Guidelines also require consideration of whether the offence exposed a number of members of the public to harm and whether the offence was a significant cause of the actual harm (i.e. a cause that more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the outcome). For the purposes of the Guidelines, actions of victims are unlikely to be considered contributory events.

In delivering the sentence, Judge Heidi Kubik QC noted that it was conceded that “clearly a number of members of the public were exposed to the same risk of harm” and further commented that “the complete lack of a risk assessment was a significant cause of the actual harm that resulted”.

Starting point and category range of fine

The court first considers an organisation’s annual turnover to identify a starting point and the range of the fine as against the culpability and harm category. Vue is a ‘large’ organisation, which reported annual turnover of £115.43m in the accounting period ending November 2020, and as such is subject to larger potential fines.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

The court can further adjust the fine on the basis of aggravating or mitigating factors, such as the offender having previous convictions.

In the present case, the Judge noted that Vue had no previous convictions or matters coming before the court and “a very positive health and safety record”.

Proportionality of fine

The court should then check whether the proposed fine based on the organisation’s turnover is proportionate to their means. The fine must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will highlight to both management and shareholders the need to comply with health and safety legislation. When finalising the sentence the court should consider the financial circumstances of the offender in the round, which would include consideration of its profitability.

Other factors indicating a reduction in fine and guilty plea

The court will then consider if there should be any further reduction in sentence based on the offender assisting the prosecutor or investigator and also any reduction on the basis of entering a guilty plea. Vue will have received a reduced sentence for having pleaded guilty to the offences.

Since the Sentencing Guidelines were published in 2016 there has been a general increase in the levels of fines imposed on large organisations, particularly in circumstances where death or serious injury has resulted.


For more information on any issues raised in this blog post, please contact a member of our Criminal Litigation team.



Jonathan Grimes is a criminal lawyer specialising in serious and complex criminal cases. He represents individuals and organisations in all areas of financial services and business crime as well as health and safety and related areas. He also continues to advise in a wide variety of other criminal law matters with a particular emphasis on cases with an international aspect, including war crimes, extradition and INTERPOL. He provides advice during investigations, attending hundreds of interviews of many different kinds in the course of his career, and is experienced in defending prosecutions brought by a range of law enforcement agencies.

Charlie Roe is a trainee solicitor. He is currently in his fourth seat in the Criminal Litigation team, after having spent his first seat in the Regulatory team, his second seat in the Employment team and his third seat in the Public Law team.


Latest blogs & news

Review of recent corporate manslaughter cases: Deco-Pak, Bosley Mill, Aster Healthcare

This blogs considers the recent corporate manslaughter conviction of Deco-Pak and two other recent corporate manslaughter cases, Bosley Mill and Aster Healthcare and what they tell us about the current approach to this offence. In January 2022 a garden supplies firm, Deco-Pak was found guilty of corporate manslaughter following a fatal accident at the Deco-Pak premises in Hipperholme, West Yorkshire on 14 April 2017.

Environmental Law Quarterly Update - Q4 2021

This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories published in the period October – December 2021.

Environmental Law Quarterly Update - Q3 2021

This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period July 2021 - September 2021. 

Vue Cinema Chain fined following death of cinema-goer

On 20 July 2021 Vue Entertainment Ltd (‘Vue’) was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay costs of £130,000 following a fatal accident at the Star City cinema in Birmingham on 9 March 2018.

Record fine of £90 million for Southern Water

On 9 July 2021 Southern Water Services Ltd (SWS) was fined £90 million, to be paid out of company operating profits, in what was the largest fine ever imposed on a water company.

Environmental Law Quarterly Update - Q2 2021

This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period April 2021 - June 2021. 

R v Wood Treatment Limited - corporate manslaughter and the challenge of proving causation

The recent case of R v Wood Limited Treatment highlights the problems faced by prosecution authorities in proving causation for the purposes of establishing criminal liability for corporate manslaughter.

Environmental Law Quarterly Update - Q1 2021

This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross section of news stories in the period Jan 2021 - March 2021. 

Arrests of care home workers following COVID-19 outbreaks: a review of criminal liability

In late February 2021 a news article reported that a care home worker had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter after a patient died of COVID-19. In late March 2021, two further care home workers were arrested on suspicion of wilful neglect. We look at how those working in care homes can potentially face criminal liability in respect of COVID-19 cases.

Thames Water fined for “entirely foreseeable” pollution

Thames Water was sentenced on Friday 26 February 2021 to a fine of £2.3m and ordered to pay costs of almost £90,000. The case is noteworthy both because of the level of the fine imposed and because the Environment Agency (“EA”) uses criminal prosecutions as a means of enforcement relatively rarely.

You are what you package your food in - Food Standards Agency consults on changes to food contact materials offences

On 4 November 2020, the Food Standards Agency (“FSA”) launched a consultation seeking views on proposed changes to the offences for non-compliance under the Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”).

Return to sender: Illegal waste exports are returned to the UK

On 28 October 2020 the Environment Agency (“EA”) announced that a consignment of 21 waste containers, which were illegally shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, had been successfully returned to their point of origin in the UK.

Care home ordered to pay £167,670 for health and safety breaches

Sentinel Health Care Limited has pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to provide safe care and treatment, resulting in avoidable harm, to resident Andrew Clegg and a further charge of failing to provide safe care and treatment exposing other service users, to a significant risk of avoidable harm.

Crown Censure for the MoD after health and safety failings

On 29 September 2020 it was announced that the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”) had accepted a Crown Censure from the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) after a 26 year old marine died during a training exercise.

Directors disqualified following history of health and safety and waste law breaches

Brother and sister Mark and Rachel Penfold were directors of a waste management company. In February 2016 an employee of the business suffered a serious injury when his arm was caught in a conveyer he was operating whilst at work. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the company and both individuals under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). 

Companies in hot water: environmental performance deteriorates further

The Environment Agency’s (“EA”) 2 October 2020 annual report provides sober reading for the nine water and waste service companies operating in England. After the 2019 report’s finding that performance across the sector was already ‘unacceptable’, the 2020 report concluded that all, without exception, had continued to deteriorate.

The Fire Safety Bill: Extending the scope of the Fire Safety Order

On 1 October, the Fire Safety Bill had its second reading and debate in the House of Lords. The Bill is short but introduces important new measures.

Recycling firm charged with corporate manslaughter

West Midlands Police have announced that Alutrade Limited, a specialist recycler of aluminium, is to be charged with corporate manslaughter over the death of Stuart Towns in July 2017. The last conviction of a company for corporate manslaughter was in 2017.

COVID-19: Can you be prosecuted for opening your shop?

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”), Alok Sharma, announced this week that non-essential shops will be allowed to open from 15 June. Mr Sharma also stated that if shops do not follow COVID-secure guidelines they could be subject to enforcement notices. What does this mean?

Returning to work and COVID-19: Could employers face health and safety prosecutions for infections in the workplace?

As we move through the phased easing of lockdown, employers and employees will be anxious to ensure that the return to the workplace does not exacerbate the risk of infection. Businesses do not want to find themselves falling foul of the law, and with news last month that the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE” – the body responsible for regulating and enforcing health and safety legislation) has been bolstered with £14m extra funding, it is more important than ever to manage the risks.


Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility