Sentencing guidelines for HSE offences and public bodies

The Sentencing Guidelines for Organisations: Breach of duty of employer towards employees and non-employees / Breach of duty of self-employed to others / Breach of Health and Safety Regulations were made effective from 1 February 2016. The guidelines follow the familiar pattern of assessing culpability and harm before looking at the financial information. This article looks at how the sentencing guidelines should be applied differently for public bodies.

Under a tab ‘Obtaining financial information’ for companies, the guidelines state that

1. For companies: annual accounts. Particular attention should be paid to turnover; profit before tax; directors’ remuneration, loan accounts and pension provision; and assets as disclosed by the balance sheet. Most companies are required to file audited accounts at Companies House. Failure to produce relevant recent accounts on request may properly lead to the conclusion that the company can pay any appropriate fine.
2. For partnerships: annual accounts. Particular attention should be paid to turnover; profit before tax; partners’ drawings, loan accounts and pension provision; assets as above. Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) may be required to file audited accounts with Companies House. If adequate accounts are not produced on request, see paragraph 1.

The logic behind this seems to be that large companies and partnerships should not be sentenced according to their profits. Instead, it recognises that they may reduce their profit by their choice of expenditure. Their expenditure and accounts may reveal choices made in favour of salaries for senior employees and dividends for shareholders, rather than investment in infrastructure and training. Hence, a reliance on a profit and loss balance sheet might provide only a partial picture, but a reliance on turnover and wider financial information may give a broader and more complete picture. Indeed, it is expected that a sentencing court may examine whether the company is able to re-prioritise its expenditure, which might have been revealed in its profit figure, and whether a financial hit may be justified and affordable through, for example, reductions in senior executives’ salaries. In a very serious case, a company may have to reduce its workforce and workload in order to pay for such a fine.

The guidelines then expect the sentencer to move into the fines guidance by determining the size of the company based on its turnover or equivalent. The guidelines deal with the sizes of companies so that the fine is increased or decreased according to the size of the company. Whilst this may have been set up as a helpful way of structuring where the starting point for fines should be set for different sized companies and partnerships, in practice it is interpreted by lawyers and applied by courts quite rigidly.

However, for local authorities, public bodies, health trusts and charities, the guidelines under the financial information tab states:

3. For local authorities, fire authorities and similar public bodies: the Annual Revenue Budget (‘ARB’) is the equivalent of turnover and the best indication of the size of the organisation. It is unlikely to be necessary to analyse specific expenditure or reserves (where relevant) unless inappropriate expenditure is suggested.

4. For health trusts: the independent regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts is Monitor. It publishes quarterly reports and annual figures for the financial strength and stability of trusts from which the annual income can be seen, available via the Monitor website. Detailed analysis of expenditure or reserves is unlikely to be called for.

5. For charities: it will be appropriate to inspect annual audited accounts. Detailed analysis of expenditure or reserves is unlikely to be called for unless there is a suggestion of unusual or unnecessary expenditure.

What does ‘the Annual Revenue Budget (‘ARB’) is the equivalent of turnover and the best indication of the size of the organisation’ mean in terms of the Sentencing Guidelines? For a public body, the ARB may run to 100 pages or indeed many more. It may refer to financial pressures that the public body is under, due to rises in wages, pension and NI contributions, and a reduction in Government grant. The public body may have been running a deficit. It may be cutting its workforce in order to balance its budget. It may be required by guidance to keep a contingency reserve and it may have allocated the rest of its reserves on long term and part completed capital projects. Ultimately, whatever fine is imposed, it will be paid for by the tax payer. How does the above phrase in the guidance assist the sentencing court with where to put the public body?

In short, it does not assist. The guidelines expect the sentencing court to look at a public body and say, that if its revenue is over £50 million, then it is a large organisation in terms of the sentencing guidelines.

Yet public bodies are very different from companies and partnerships. The likelihood of a sentencing court identifying in the ARB hidden cash or over expenditure on salaries, or identifying services that can be reduced in order to pay a fine, is highly unlikely. The ARB will have been agreed and set after public consultation and significant scrutiny, followed by public debate. In public bodies, employees’ salaries are fixed on national pay scales. Expenditure is often directly driven by the volume of patients or by service level standards. It is difficult to see how a public body with a turnover of £40 million should be treated any differently than a public body with a turnover of £240 million. It may be argued that a fine of £100,000 can be spread more thinly over 1 million council tax payers than it can be over ¼ million council taxpayers, and it is therefore more affordable, but ultimately, it is £100,000 that has to be found by council taxpayers and somewhere it will result in a service not being provided or delayed, regardless of the size of the public body. If the fine is increased, based on the size of the income of the public body, then the number of tax payers being adversely affected or services delayed or not delivered is increased.

Forcing public bodies into the definitions of medium, large or very large organisation seems to be a meaningless exercise, particularly, if as illustrated below, it is then departed from by the sentencing courts in less serious cases. Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Code states that “Every court – (a) must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and (b) must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” The sentencing guidelines require the sentencing court to determine whether the overall fine is proportionate to the means of the offender. Arguments are mounted that it would not be in the interests of justice or proportionate to treat a public body in the same way as a company or partnership, and the sentencing courts are urged to move downwards away from the categorisation of fines based on turnover or income.

Ultimately, the imposition of a fine is more symbolic than punitive for a public body. It symbolises that the public body has been held accountable for its failings. It symbolises that a senior official has had to take responsibility for those failings, as a senior official is normally present during any such hearing, or indeed in the case of the Police, be the named Defendant (the Chief Constable). It symbolises in an HSE case that the HSE has taken effective action and may have brought about improvements, thereby enabling the public to have confidence in it as a regulator and also in the Defendant public body that it has made the necessary improvements following the HSE’s prosecution. There is often significant media attention in relation to cases involving public bodies.

Of course, for a sentencing court to consider departing from the guidelines by making a significant reduction, it does require that the public body pleads guilty, co-operates with the HSE in its investigation, has no previous history of breaches or offences, and carries out remedial action so that the risk of repetition is dramatically reduced.

Such arguments regarding treating public bodies differently seem to be well received by the sentencing courts in cases not involving a death, and were recently when I represented Derbyshire Constabulary who were prosecuted by the HSE and fined £60,000. Below is a summary of cases from the HSE website that seems to support the point. The more detailed HSE press summary is at the end of this article.

• 07.05.2025: A school academy trust was fined £20,000 and a man given a suspended prison sentence after a member of the public was hit by a falling tree branch. 
• 04.06.2025: A college in Nantwich that specialises in outdoor-based careers was fined £40,000 after a student’s fingers were severed when his hand came into contact with a mitre saw. 
• 07.08.2025: A vulnerable service user was able to leave their care home undetected in the early hours of the morning. A search was launched involving the Police, Coastguard and Firefighters and the service user was later found dead. It was found that the doors at the home were not alarmed or protected. The Council was fined £80,000.
• 04.11.2025: An East Midlands social housing provider was fined £32,000 after multiple workers were diagnosed with vibration related ill-health conditions such as Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). 
• 12.01.2026: Glasgow City Council was fined £80,000 after a military veteran sustained life-changing injuries when he was struck by a falling lamppost in the city’s west end in June 2023.
• 16.01.2026: NHS Trust fined £40,000 after several employees developed serious and irreversible hand-arm vibration-related conditions.
• 21.01.2026: Derbyshire Constabulary was fined £60,000 after four serving police officers suffered burns after petrol bombs were thrown at them during a simulated exercise at a training facility in Rotherham on 2 February 2021 and their PPE failed. The Constabulary was accused of inadequate risk assessments, policies and processes, but not of causing the injuries that were suffered.

Anyone representing a public body in a less serious HSE prosecution should be aware of the deficiencies in the Sentencing Guidelines when making submissions on sentencing to a Court. They should feel encouraged that the Courts have been taking a realistic approach, given the pressures on public funding and that any fine is ultimately paid by taxpayers.

Mark Ruffell is Head of Pump Court Chambers’ Regulatory and Disciplinary Law Team. He has previously served as a local government councillor for 24 years, including at Cabinet level and was a member of the Licensing Committee.

HSE website reporting of public body cases

School trust fined after member of public hit by falling tree branch 07.05.2025

A school academy trust has been fined and a man given a suspended prison sentence after a member of the public was hit by a falling tree branch.

Bishop Bewick Catholic Education Trust and gardening services provider Nicolas Thépot (trading as ‘The Green Yem’) both pleaded guilty to health and safety breaches following the incident, which left a 68 year-old with serious injuries.

Gillian Gardner had been walking her dog on the pavement along West Road in Newcastle when she was hit by the falling branch, which, as a result of the impact, knocked her on to the road and into the path of incoming traffic. Thépot continued working on the tree the very next day with the only change being that some cones and tape were placed on to the pavement.

The incident took place on 9 August 2022. Thépot had been contracted by the trust to fell two trees in the grounds of St Cuthberts Catholic High School on Gretna Road. He and a young apprentice set about the work and having climbed one of the trees, Thépot was using a chainsaw to remove branches and sections of the trunk. He had been using a rope to tie to the branches to be removed, with his young apprentice tasked with pulling each one inside the school boundary as they fell.

However, it was during this operation that the rope snapped, causing both it and the falling branch to crash into Mrs Gardner and her dog. Thépot had no training or qualifications in arboriculture or use of chainsaws

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Thépot had no training or qualifications in arboriculture or in the use of chainsaws. He was using an unsafe method to fell the tree, by carrying out aerial chainsaw work above the open footpath and road.

The investigation also found Bishop Bewick Catholic Education Trust had made no checks on Thépot’s experience, competence or qualifications. The trust had not checked how he intended to do the work in advance of awarding the contract, made no check on the method used during the work, and did not stop the work after the incident.

In fact, Thépot continued working on the tree the very next day using the same method. The only change made was that some cones and tape were placed on to the pavement. There was no way around the coned off area for pedestrians without stepping into the busy road, nor was there any signage in place to indicate risk. Members of the public were still walking underneath the tree while Thépot was working with a chainsaw – with the risk not immediately obvious to members of the public from the path. The trust did not attempt to stop him working in this manner despite the obvious risks and the incident the previous day.

The work was only stopped when HSE inspectors became aware of the incident, arrived on the scene, and served prohibition notices on both the trust and Thépot.

The rope being used to to tie to branches snapped during the tree felling work

Bishop Bewick Catholic Education Trust, pleaded guilty to breaching their duty under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. It was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £4,344 in costs at Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates Court on 17 April 2025.

Nicolas Thépot, (of Netherwitton Way, Newcastle upon Tyne) as a self-employed person, failed to discharge his duties under section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, to ensure persons not being his employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. He pleaded guilty at South Tyneside Magistrates Court on 7 May 2025 and was given a 12 week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months. He must also complete 100 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £1,000 towards the prosecution costs.

Cheshire college fined after student’s fingers severed 04.06.2025

A college in Nantwich that specialises in outdoor-based careers has been fined £40,000 after a student’s fingers were severed when his hand came into contact with a mitre saw.

Aaron Maguire, from Crewe, was a second year Horticulture student at Reaseheath College when his hand came into contact with the blade of the saw on 20 September 2023. He had been using the saw to cut a piece of wood along its length when the wood twisted and pulled his hand into the cutting disc of the saw.

This resulted in the then 17-year old cutting through several fingers and the thumb on his left hand. Following an eight hour operation, surgeons managed to successfully re-attach Aaron’s thumb and index finger, but the middle finger could not be saved.

Keen hockey player Aaron, who is now 19, said everyday tasks were now more difficult.

“Although my left hand is not my dominant hand, I have had to adjust to doing things that I would normally do with my left hand, such as cutting food and picking up everyday objects like glasses and cups,” he said.

“I cannot grip things properly and it makes it difficult to do the hobbies I did.

“Prior to the incident, I was a keen hockey player. I still try to play hockey now, but it is nowhere near the level I was playing at before I had my injury.”

Aaron Maguire was just 17 when the incident happened

More than 18 months on, Aaron has been told that he requires further surgery to his middle finger, which he hopes won’t affect his plans to go to university in September.

“There are a number of reasons why an operation needs to take place.

“One of them is because the bone in my index finger is gradually sliding down and pushing into the skin on my hand.

“The operation is due to take place later this year. If the timing of the operation occurs around September when I am due to start my university course, this will have a significant impact on my studies.”

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the college failed to adequately risk assess or produce a written safe system of work for using the mitre saw. The college did not record what training and instruction was given to students on the use of the saw.

There was no process to determine whether supervision was needed, nor was there any refresher training for using the saw following the students’ return from their summer break.

On the day of the incident, Aaron had been seen by the tutor earlier that morning using the saw improperly. Despite this, he was allowed to use the saw again later that day without supervision.

HSE guidance states that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment should be carried out to identify measures that can be taken to overcome the risks that the hazard presents. It also states that young people warrant special consideration due to their judgement and lack of experience.

Employers need to satisfy themselves that in addition to being adequately trained, users can demonstrate competence, and the level of supervision should be directly related to the level of competence.

Reaseheath College in Nantwich, pleaded guilty to Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The college was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £6,106 in costs at Chester Magistrates’ Court on 4 June 2025.

Council fined after failures led to care home death 07.08.2025

A local authority has been fined after the death of a patient who went missing from a care home on the Isle of Barra.

Western Isles Council pled guilty to a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act following the death of a 69-year-old man at St Brendan’s Care Home in Castlebay.

Allan MacLeod, who had been diagnosed with Dementia, had been a resident at the home – one of five operated by the council throughout the Western Isles – for around six months at the time of his death. In the early hours of 9 March 2024, he had been able to leave his bedroom without the knowledge of staff and was only found around four hours after going missing. He died a short time later in hospital.

Mr MacLeod had been placed in the home in October 2023 to allow him to be nearer a relative who stayed on Barra. In his first month at the home, staff observed him and determined patterns in his behaviour and how they could best assist him. He was able to go on regular road trips around the island with his family.

On 8 March, having been settled in bed around 9pm, hourly checks were carried out to ensure his wellbeing, but at 2am on 9 March, his bed was unoccupied, and he could not be accounted for after a search of the home.

To avoid being observed by staff, he had exited the home via the only door that was not alarmed and was ten metres from his bedroom. Police Scotland were alerted and a search initiated.

Local Coastguard, RNLI and firefighters were called out to assist in the search and at around 6am, the Coastguard helicopter detected a heat signature near the home on the patio of a residential property.

Mr MacLeod was found with facial injuries consistent with falling. He was transferred to hospital, but despite the efforts of medical staff, he died an hour later.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) determined that he had made several previous attempts to leave the home. Any measures that staff had taken to mitigate this, by fitting an electronic tag to his clothing that indicated his whereabouts had been defeated by Mr Macleod having removed it.

A risk assessment carried out in December 2023 indicated that Mr MacLeod would remove a tag if he located it, therefore staff required to be vigilant to this behaviour. It was only after his death that the home introduced a regime of half hourly checks on residents. Arrangements had already been made to install keypad entry systems on all doors, but this work had not been completed before Mr MacLeod’s death.

Western Isles Council, of Sandwick Road, Stornoway, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 31 and Section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The council was fined £80,000 at Lochmaddy Sheriff Court on 6 August 2025.

Social housing management firm fined for failing to protect workers 04.11.2025

An East Midlands social housing provider has been fined £32,000 after multiple workers were diagnosed with vibration related ill-health conditions such as Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS).

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) launched an investigation after it received more than ten reports of vibration related ill-health in a short period of time. The workers affected had until recently been employed by Nottingham City Homes Limited, an arms-length management organisation that managed social housing on behalf of Nottingham City Council between 2005 and 2023.

The HSE investigation found a large number of the company’s employees were exposed to vibration in their day to day work.  These included bricklayers, joiners, electricians, plasterers, caretakers and others – while their work was varied, all included extensive use of power tools, ranging from drills and impact drivers to vibrating plates and road breakers, over an extended period of time.  Despite this, and the dangers exposure can cause, the company had not properly assessed or controlled worker’s exposure to vibration.

Prolonged and regular exposure to vibration can affect a worker’s health resulting in disorders of the nerves, blood supply, joints and muscles of the hands and arms. These disorders are collectively known as HAVS and symptoms can include pain, tingling, numbness and loss of strength.  HAVS can make everyday tasks such as fastening buttons or holding utensils difficult or impossible.

The HSE investigation also found that the company had not undertaken a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks posed by vibration. Control measures, such as removing the need to use vibrating tools, using lower vibration alternatives, or limiting exposure times, had not been properly implemented. Tool maintenance and health surveillance arrangements were inadequate, and employees had not received sufficient training on the risks that they faced.

Nottingham City Homes Limited, of Loxley House, Station Street, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £32,000 and ordered to pay £6,226 in costs at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on 3 November 2025.

Glasgow City Council fined £80,000 after military veteran struck by collapsing lamppost 12.01.2026

Glasgow City Council has been fined £80,000 after a military veteran sustained life-changing injuries when he was struck by a falling lamppost in the city’s west end in June 2023.

A 50-year-old man was standing at the roadside in conversation with a work colleague when the lamppost collapsed, striking him from behind and pinning him to the ground. Overhead cables attached to the lamppost were then snagged by a passing motor vehicle, which dragged the collapsed lamppost over the man.

The incident occurred just after 4pm, on 20 June 2023, on Bellshaugh Road at its junction with Kirklee Gardens and Cleveden Drive, close to Kelvinside Academy. The area was busy with both adult and child pedestrians, with it being a school day.

The man sustained severe, life-threatening and life-changing including multiple spinal, pelvic and rib fractures, an open leg fracture, and a fractured left ankle . He spent seven weeks in hospital and has since undergone multiple surgeries, and continues to receive medical treatment. He now has reduced mobility and significant ongoing pain.

Prior to the incident, the injured person retained a high level of fitness and had a very active lifestyle, including regular hill walking and leading a section of army cadets.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) established that the lamppost had structurally failed due to severe corrosion at its base. Loss of steel thickness of at least 60 per cent due to corrosion was measured, with many areas showing significantly greater loss. The lamppost, manufactured in the 1950s or 1960s, was well over twice its expected service life of 20-25 years.

During the last Council inspection in March 2022, the column was identified as being in poor condition and scheduled it for replacement in April 2024. However, HSE’s investigation found that the Council’s inspection regime failed to identify the extent of corrosion and the immediate risk of collapse. The visual inspections undertaken were inadequate in correctly identifying the condition of the column, the risk of failure and the action required.

The Council did not follow established industry guidance, issued by the Institution of Lighting Professionals, by not prioritising the removal of lighting columns assessed as being in poor condition relative to the consequence of their failure.

Following the incident, the Council removed other similar lamppost with base embellishments from around Glasgow and has since updated its lighting maintenance procedures.

Glasgow City Council, of City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, G2 1DU, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Council was fined £80,000 at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 8 January 2026.

NHS Trust fined after it failed to manage hand-arm vibration risks 16.01.2026

An NHS Trust has been fined £40,000 after several employees were diagnosed with Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), following prolonged exposure to vibration from work equipment.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) began an investigation into Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust after an employee was diagnosed with HAVS – a serious, lifelong condition characterised by persistent numbness and tingling in the fingers, reduced sensory perception and impaired manual dexterity.

The investigation found the Trust failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks posed by the use of vibrating tools. There were no records to demonstrate the level of vibration exposure employees faced, and the Trust also failed to eliminate exposure or reduce it to as low as reasonably practicable.

Furthermore, it became clear that employees had not been provided with suitable and sufficient information, instruction or training about the risks associated with vibration exposure.

HSE also identified that the Trust had failed to report that two other employees had been diagnosed with HAVS and that one employee had been diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS).

One affected employee, Sally Elliott, who worked in the plaster-cast department for more than 25 years, described how she was never warned about the risks of vibration exposure.

“I never, for one minute, suspected that the issues I was experiencing were being caused by the tools I used in my workplace,” she said.

“I was never given any information on the risks of HAVS and I knew nothing about the potential symptoms.”

She went on to explain how her symptoms gradually worsened, affecting both her work and everyday life:

“Every aspect of daily life is impacted due to the numbness, weakness, pins-and-needles in my fingers and hands. From getting up to going to bed anything that I need to do with my hands is affected.”

After being diagnosed with advanced stage 3 vascular and sensorineural HAVS, she was no longer able to continue in her role and has remained off work since October 2023.

“I gave my all to Chesterfield Royal Hospital and enjoyed my job,” she added.

“I took seriously my duty of care to patients, and I feel the Trust failed in their duty of care to me. I feel let down and I am suffering the consequences through no fault of my own.”

The HSE investigation concluded that Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust failed to properly assess the risks associated with hand-arm vibration and failed to adequately control employees’ exposure.

Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, of Chesterfield Road, Calow, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Trust was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £4,911 at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court on 12 January 2026.

Derbyshire Police prosecuted for failing to protect officers 20.01.2026

Derbyshire Police has been fined £60,000 after several of its officers were injured when a riot training exercise went wrong.

Four serving police officers suffered burns after petrol bombs were thrown at them during the simulated exercise at a training facility in Rotherham on 2 February 2021. An investigation into the incident by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the officers had been exposed to significant and avoidable risks during the exercise.

Officers wearing flame-retardant personal protective equipment (PPE) had been required to face petrol bombs thrown by other officers as part of a training drill intended to replicate a public disorder situation.

However, it resulted in four of the 13 officers taking part sustaining burns to their lower bodies, three of whom required hospital treatment. All four have since returned to work, but the incident resulted in permanent scarring, and psychological harm which will have a lasting effect.

The HSE investigation found that Derbyshire Constabulary had failed to properly plan and risk assess the exercise. Key failings included:

• Failing to give officers adequate information on the lifespan, care, and inspection of the flame retardant PPE to ensure it provided adequate protection.
• Failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for both the production and deployment of petrol bombs during the training.
• Failing to implement safe systems of work to control the foreseeable risks created in the course of petrol reception training.

Derbyshire Constabulary of Butterley Hall, Ripley, Derby, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They were fined £60,000 and ordered to pay £9,470 in costs at Sheffield Magistrates Court on 19 January 2026.