Sentencing Updates

The defendant water company was convicted over failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement to provide records by the Environment Agency. 
The defendant entered a not guilty plea to the charge, claiming it had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. Having heard the evidence in the case, the judge rejected the defendant’s claim. The defendant was convicted on one count of failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995, contrary to section 110(2)(a) of the Environment Act 1995.
It was charged with three matters of failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995, contrary to section 110(2)(a) of the Environment Act 1995.

The defendant farm’s slurry store collapsed and polluted at least 12km of waterways. 60,000 – 70,000 gallons of slurry were released. The collapsed slurry store had been in place since the 1970s and had not received any formal maintenance apart from visual inspections in the past decade. It was contended that the pollution was caused by the slurry store being beyond its lifespan and had not been maintained properly.
The defendant was found guilty of an offence under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016.

Small company

£806 fine

The defendant property company failed to clear around 4,000 tonnes of waste from land.
It pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an order from the Environment Agency to clear waste. The site was storing general waste, including bricks, trommel fines, wood, construction and green waste.

When the defendant bought the land it was aware that a waste company was operating from the site. The waste operator went into liquidation after failing in an appeal to overturn a revocation order of its environmental permit. This meant that once the waste operator left the site, the landowner was responsible for clearing the waste.

The defendant failed, without reasonable excuse to comply with a notice, served on it pursuant to section 59ZC(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in that it failed to remove controlled waste from land. This was contrary to section 59ZC (4) and section 59 (ZB((6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The defendant and its director were found guilty of allowing general mixed waste and waste consistent with house clearance and renovation works, to be dumped on the director’s land, and operating a regulated facility without an environmental permit.

These are offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016.
The defendant and director had been served with a Section 59 Notice, requiring the removal of deposited wastes from the site.
During a follow up visit officers found the director had failed to fully comply with the notice and there was evidence of waste activity continuing on site.

Both the defendant and director were then served a s34 Notice requiring the provision of waste transfer notes, to demonstrate that he had met his duty of care obligations, in ensuring that he had kept a written description of the wastes imported or generated at the site. Again, this notice failed to be complied with.

A resident at the defendant’s care home died after a fire in her bedroom. She suffered burns and severe smoke inhalation and died in hospital. The resident was a regular smoker and she began refusing to leave her bed on occasion. She did not have her smoker care plan reviewed, which exposed her to a level of risk.

On the day of her death, an alarm was activated which stated there was a fire in a zone covering the kitchen of the care home, which was adjacent to her room. The area was evacuated but was later found to contain no fire. Smoke was then discovered coming from her room. It is said she was not smoking before the fire took place.

The defendant wholesaler sold fake Wonka chocolate bars around the UK, which included nuts that were not mentioned on the packaging. Staff were spotted removing the outer wrappers from cheap, imported chocolate bars and replacing them with Wonka Bar wrappers during an inspection. 

An environmental health officer also said the warehouse conditions were unhygienic and unclean, with mice and pigeons in the unit.

The defendant pleaded guilty to food safety and trademark offences.

Whilst working on a construction project at the University of Birmingham a worker fell 10 metres and died. He, and another worker, had been in a scissor lift while installing cladding during the construction of a new engineering hall. The lift was pushed over by a nearby crane. The survivor sustained injuries to his spine and broken ribs, before spending seven weeks in a neck brace. He also required pins to be inserted in his pelvis and thigh.

The defendant principal contractor should have implemented better controls and put in place better communication between contractors. There were contractors at the site that were moving the hydraulic units into place with the overhead travelling gantry crane, and another team who were installing internal cladding. The defendant, as principal contractor on site, had a duty to ensure communication and co-operation between these contractors.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.

The defendant waste company was fined after one demolition operative was killed and another seriously injured while decommissioning a North Sea gas rig. They were removing an overhanging piece of metal pipework (known as a skirt pile), weighing in excess of 27 tonnes, from a jacket (a structure placed in the sea, designed to support oil and gas rig platforms), when it gave way. The pile struck the mobile elevating work platform containing the men, throwing them to the ground about 12 metres below.

There were serious failings with the planning and the risk assessment which did not adequately cover the planned works. Shortcomings in supervision of the incident were also identified. The defendant did not risk assess the skirt pile being removed as it was considered low risk. As a result there was no cutting plan or safe system of work for the skirt pile.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

£267.8 million

Micro company

£3.2 million

£80,000

A worker was replacing step bolts on a pylon when he received an electric shock of 33 thousand volts. He sustained burns to 40 per cent of his body, including to his arms and legs, and also lost part of his right buttock.

The 2nd defendant failed to properly plan and assess the risk. Had this been done, it would have identified that the arms of pylon were too short to do the work safely, while maintaining the specified safety distances as per industry standard.

It pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The 1st defendant failed to ensure that the electricity was off in order to do this work safely on the pylon.

It pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 14 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

The defendant military explosives manufacturer was fined after an employee was killed and another seriously injured. They were working on the production of MTV – an explosive substance used in military flares. They were cleaning a vessel used in the production and were removing residual explosive material in preparation for the next day’s shift. The deceased was partially inside the vessel when the remaining material exploded, killing him instantly. The other worker was caught in the resulting fireball and sustained substantial burns.

The defendant had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. It had also failed to identify that explosive material was building up within work equipment, or to identify the sensitiveness of these explosives and had not put in place controls to ensure that this build-up of material did not present a serious risk to workers.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

An employee of the defendant wood recycling company was killed when he was struck by a wheel loader. As he was walking across the yard, the loader with its bucket raised, was operating in the yard along with other vehicles, but as the shovel moved forward, it collided with him. He died from the injuries.

The defendant did not properly organise its workplace to keep pedestrians safe. There were no control measures, such as physical barriers, to prevent pedestrians accessing areas where loading shovels, lorries, forklift trucks and 360 grabs operated. It failed to properly assess the risks from operating machinery with reduced visibility and did not properly train, instruct and monitor employees. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant food manufacturer failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. A HSE inspector identified multiple failings related to the guarding of machinery. Three machines were deemed unsafe due to interlocking safety devices being defeated and guards being completely removed.

Prohibition notices had previously been issued to the defendant in 2016 and 2019.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three breaches of Regulation 11(1) of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The defendant engineering firm was fined after an employee suffered a fractured skull, hip, jaw and pelvis, while working at a HS2 construction site. He had been repairing a conveyor when he fell 11 metres. Stair treads had been removed in the conveyor’s stairway to ensure it could be supported by a crane during the reparation work, resulting in a gap in the stairway.

The worker fell through this gap and landed on the concrete floor below.

The defendant failed to ensure the work at height was properly planned, appropriately supervised, and carried out in a manner that was as safe as reasonably practicable.

It pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

A man died in his own home after falling through a hole in his bathroom that had been left by workers. The bathroom was being converted into a wet room by the defendant construction company. Floorboards had been removed to access piping but the subsequent hole left unguarded. The victim was found dead on his kitchen floor by his son in law.

The defendant failed to adequately secure the hole as its employees were not properly trained. The company had also failed to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, nor a method statement for the work involved.

The defendant was found guilty of breaching section 2(1) and section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

A school worker’s finger was sliced off by a circular bench saw at one of the defendant’s schools. He was cutting pieces of wood for use in a lesson. While pushing one of the sheets of wood the worker felt a pain in his right index finger and immediately turned off the machine. As he looked down, he saw his finger lying on the bench.

The defendant failed to ensure the worker was trained to use the saw. He had used it many times but had not been trained on how to use it safely.

The defendant council pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Two walkers were hit by a silver birch tree that was being felled in a forest. The tree began to fall after a forest ranger made a sink cut with a chainsaw. As it was falling, the ranger noticed the couple walking on the nearby deer track and attempted to warn them but it was too late.

The lady suffered a traumatic brain injury, a fractured collar bone, several fractured ribs and a shoulder dislocation. She spent considerable time in hospital following the incident and continues to undergo physical and cognitive therapy several months later.

The defendant conservators trust failed to identify the risk to members of the public from tree felling. This meant precautions, such as posting warning signs and using barriers and banksmen, were not implemented to prevent members of the public from accessing areas where the tree felling was taking place.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Ordered to repay £94,019.93, of which £56,072.56 will go to his victims.

If not paid  within three months he will face an additional 18 months in prison.

The defendant rogue trader targeted vulnerable people and carried out shoddy repairs to their homes. One of the victims, an 89-year-old man, was driven to his bank nine times and made to withdraw his life savings totalling £23,950.

The defendant was convicted of conspiring to defraud and perverting the course of justice in 2022 and was made the subject of a confiscation order.

Four years and nine months in prison.

Disqualified from being a company director for 10 years.

The defendant, described as a ‘professional conman’ defrauded his vulnerable victims out of more than £500,000. He pleaded guilty to two counts of participating in a fraudulent business under the Companies Act 2006.

Trading as LJ Property Solutions Ltd, the defendant targeted mainly older homeowners who had money and could no longer keep up the maintenance of the property themselves. Many of them were widowed, struggling with mobility or limited vision. Trading as Windowseal Ltd, he utilised the same trade practices targeting vulnerable residents.

Under the guise of offering window maintenance policies, victims would receive a cold call claiming they were in the area and a visit arranged to assess their windows. The investigation revealed the real purpose of this initial and various subsequent visits were to persuade the customer to have additional property maintenance work. This included roofing work, that was usually not required, frequently not undertaken and any work done was of poor quality usually resulting in damage to the property that wasn’t previously present. 

Pay £12,958

12-month suspended sentence.

Carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.

The defendant newsagent director was found guilty of selling alcohol to someone under the age of 18. He was found guilty in his absence.

Trading Standards Officers visited his newsagents and provided advice and guidance on the law regarding underage sales. The following month an alcohol test purchase was attempted, and a sale was made to a 16-year-old girl. A warning letter was sent following this test purchase. Another test purchase was undertaken. Another sale of alcohol was made, this time to a 14-year-old female volunteer test purchaser.

£1,000 fine (£500 defendant, £500 his company).

£2,000 compensation to be paid.

The defendant car dealer was investigated by trading standards officers. They found there were hidden structural defects in one car making it unroadworthy and potentially dangerous to who was driving, as well as pedestrians and other road users.

The defendant and his company pleaded guilty to selling an unroadworthy Toyota Aygo to a resident, and misleading another resident about the service history, warranty and MOT history of a Vauxhall Corsa.

They also admitted telling both customers that the cars were ‘sold as seen’ to try to prevent them from asking for a refund or repair when things went wrong.

The defendant and his company each pleaded guilty to five offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.