Health & Safety Offences
Health and safety offences in the UK arise from failures to ensure safe working conditions or prevent harm to employees and the public. These offences are mainly governed by:
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA 1974)
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Regulations such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
🔹 Key Legal Principles:
Employers owe a duty of care to employees and the public.
Offences can be committed through omissions (failures to act).
Liability can fall on individuals or corporate bodies.
Strict liability applies in many regulatory offences — intent may not be required.
Corporate manslaughter applies where serious management failure leads to death.
🧾 Landmark Case Law on Health & Safety Offences
1. R v. Chargot Ltd. (2008) UKHL 73
Facts:
A worker died when a dumper truck overturned.
The company argued the prosecution had not proven the specific act that caused the death.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that once death occurred in a workplace, the burden shifted to the employer to prove they took all reasonably practicable steps.
Emphasized the reverse burden under HSWA 1974.
Significance:
Reinforced that health & safety offences do not require proof of specific acts of negligence.
It's enough to show that risk existed and precautions weren’t adequate.
2. R v. HTM Ltd. (2006)
Facts:
Employee was killed due to inadequate training on machinery.
The employer argued that training had been provided.
Judgment:
Court found the training was not adequate or comprehensible.
Conviction upheld under Section 2 HSWA 1974 (duty to protect employees).
Significance:
Training must be sufficient and effective — not just formal.
Employers must consider the skill level and understanding of employees.
3. R v. Tangerine Confectionery Ltd. and R v. Veolia ES (UK) Ltd. (2011)
Facts:
Two separate cases involving fatal injuries at work.
Defendants claimed they couldn’t foresee the specific type of accident.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal ruled that foreseeability of the general type of harm was enough.
Strict liability applied under health & safety law.
Significance:
You don’t need to foresee the exact accident — just a general risk of harm.
Sets a low bar for prosecution to prove foreseeability.
4. R v. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd. (2011) – First Corporate Manslaughter Conviction
Facts:
Young geologist was buried in a collapsed trench.
Company had allowed unsafe excavation methods.
Judgment:
Company convicted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Found that the way the company's activities were managed amounted to a gross breach of duty of care.
Significance:
First conviction under the 2007 Act.
Proved that small companies can also be held criminally liable for management failures leading to death.
5. R v. Sellafield Ltd. (2014)
Facts:
Nuclear company committed health and safety breaches relating to radioactive waste handling.
Judgment:
Court imposed a £700,000 fine — reflecting the company’s size and seriousness of breach.
No death occurred, but the risk to the public justified the large penalty.
Significance:
Demonstrated risk alone is enough to attract heavy penalties — actual harm is not necessary.
Fines must be proportionate to company size and financial strength.
6. R v. Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd. (2006)
Facts:
After a rail accident killed four people, the company was prosecuted under health and safety law.
Judgment:
Found guilty of breaching Section 3 HSWA 1974 (duty to protect non-employees).
Criticised for inadequate planning and inspection.
Significance:
Reinforced duty of employers toward the public and other third parties.
Focused on systemic management failures rather than individual error.
7. R v. Lyons (2013)
Facts:
Worker died in a warehouse due to inadequate risk assessments and supervision.
Judgment:
Company and manager both convicted.
Judge stated that personal responsibility of managers is enforceable under health & safety law.
Significance:
Reinforced that individuals (not just companies) can be criminally liable.
Managers must take active responsibility for safety.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Key Offence | Legal Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Chargot (2008) | General duty of care | Once risk is shown, burden shifts to employer to prove safety |
| HTM Ltd. (2006) | Employee training | Inadequate training = breach of duty |
| Tangerine/Veolia (2011) | Foreseeability | General risk is enough — strict liability |
| Cotswold (2011) | Corporate manslaughter | First conviction under 2007 Act |
| Sellafield (2014) | Risk to public | Risk alone, not harm, justifies large fines |
| Balfour Beatty (2006) | Duty to third parties | Failure to protect non-employees |
| Lyons (2013) | Personal liability | Individuals can be held responsible |
📍 Conclusion
UK Health & Safety law imposes strict, proactive duties on employers and managers. Courts have consistently held that:
Risk management is key, even where no actual injury occurs.
Corporations and individuals can both be held accountable.
Prevention is the priority, and failure to ensure safe conditions — even unintentionally — can lead to serious legal consequences, including criminal charges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments