Crown Court

Corporate manslaughter

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, s.1

Effective from 1 February 2016

Toggle all dropdowns

Triable only on indictment
Maximum: unlimited fine
Offence range: £180,000 fine – £20 million fine

Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings.

Step 1 - Determining the seriousness of the offence

By definition, the harm and culpability involved in corporate manslaughter will be very serious. Every case will involve death and corporate fault at a high level. The court should assess factors affecting the seriousness of the offence within this context by asking:

(a) How foreseeable was serious injury? Usually, the more foreseeable a serious injury was, the graver the offence. Failure to heed warnings or advice from the authorities, employees or others or to respond appropriately to ‘near misses’ arising in similar circumstances may be factors indicating greater foreseeability of serious injury.

(b) How far short of the appropriate standard did the offender fall? Where an offender falls far short of the appropriate standard, the level of culpability is likely to be high. Lack of adherence to recognised standards in the industry or the inadequacy of training, supervision and reporting arrangements may be relevant factors to consider.

(c) How common is this kind of breach in this organisation? How widespread was the non-compliance? Was it isolated in extent or, for example, indicative of a systematic departure from good practice across the offender’s operations or representative of systemic failings? Widespread non-compliance is likely to indicate a more serious offence.

(d) Was there more than one death, or a high risk of further deaths, or serious personal injury in addition to death? The greater the number of deaths, very serious personal injuries or people put at high risk of death, the more serious the offence.

Offence Category A: Where answers to questions (a)–(d) indicate a high level of harm or culpability within the context of offence

Offence Category B: Where answers to questions (a)–(d) indicate a lower level of culpability.

Step 2 - Starting point and category range

Having determined the offence category, the court should identify the relevant table for the offender from the tables below. There are tables for different sized organisations.

At step two, the court is required to focus on the organisation’s annual turnover or equivalent to reach a starting point for a fine. The court should then consider further adjustment within the category range for aggravating and mitigating features.

At step three, the court may be required to refer to other financial factors listed below to ensure that the proposed fine is proportionate.

Obtaining financial information

The offender is expected to provide comprehensive accounts for the last three years, to enable the court to make an accurate assessment of its financial status. In the absence of such disclosure, or where the court is not satisfied that it has been given sufficient reliable information, the court will be entitled to draw reasonable inferences as to the offender’s means from evidence it has heard and from all the circumstances of the case, which may include the inference that the offender can pay any fine.

Normally, only information relating to the organisation before the court will be relevant, unless it is demonstrated to the court that the resources of a linked organisation are available and can properly be taken into account.

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.
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.
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.
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 www.monitor-nhsft.gov.uk. Detailed analysis of expenditure or reserves is unlikely to be called for.
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.

Very large organisation

Where an offending company’s turnover or equivalent very greatly exceeds the threshold for large companies, courts should consider fines outside the range for large companies it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence.

There is no precise level of turnover at which an organisation becomes "very large". In the case of most organisations it will be obvious if it either is or is not very large.

In the case of very large organisations the appropriate sentence cannot be reached by merely applying a mathematical formula to the starting points and ranges for large organisations.

In setting the level of fine for a very large organisation the court must consider the seriousness of the offence with reference to the culpability and harm factors above and the aggravating and mitigating factors below, the purposes of sentencing (including punishment and deterrence) and the financial circumstances of the offending organisation. Regard should be had to the principles set out at steps 3 and 4 below.

Particular regard should be had to making the fine proportionate to the means of the organisation, sufficiently large to constitute appropriate punishment depending on the seriousness of the offence, and sufficient to bring home to the management and shareholders the need to achieve a safe environment for workers and members of the public affected by their activities.

Large organisation Turnover more than £50 million
Offence category	Starting point	Category range
A	£7,500,000	£4,800,000 – £20,000,000
B	£5,000,000	£3,000,000 – £12,500,000

Medium organisation Turnover £10 million to £50 million
Offence category	Starting point	Category range
A	£3,000,000	£1,800,000 – £7,500,000
B	£2,000,000	£1,200,000 – £5,000,000

Small organisation Turnover £2 million to £10 million
Offence category	Starting point	Category range
A	£800,000	£540,000 – £2,800,000
B	£540,000	£350,000 – £2,000,000

Micro organisation Turnover up to £2 million
Offence category	Starting point	Category range
A	£450,000	£270,000 – £800,000
B	£300,000	£180,000 – £540,000

The tables below contain a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in a further upward or downward adjustment. In some cases, having considered these factors, it may be appropriate to move outside the identified category range.

Factors increasing seriousness

Statutory aggravating factors

Effective from: 01 April 2023

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

Guidance on the use of previous convictions

The following guidance should be considered when seeking to determine the degree to which previous convictions should aggravate sentence:
1. Previous convictions are considered only after the starting point for the sentence has been reached.
2. The primary significance of previous convictions (including convictions in other jurisdictions) is the extent to which they indicate trends in offending behaviour and possibly the offender’s response to earlier sentences.
3. For sentencing purposes, previous convictions are normally relevant to the current offence when they are of a similar type.
4. Previous convictions of a type different from the current offence may be relevant where they are an indication of persistent offending or escalation and/or a failure to comply with previous court orders.
5. Where information is available on the context of previous offending this may assist the court in assessing the relevance of that prior offending to the current offence.
6. When considering the number and frequency of previous convictions it may be relevant to consider the size of the offending organisation. For example, a large organisation with multiple sites may be more likely to have previous convictions than a smaller organisation with only one site.
7. The aggravating effect of relevant previous convictions reduces with the passage of time; older convictions are less relevant to the offender’s culpability for the current offence and less likely to be predictive of future offending.
8. Where the previous offence is particularly old it will normally have little relevance for the current sentencing exercise.
9. The court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it. Where there has been a significant gap between previous and current convictions or a reduction in the frequency of offending this may indicate that the offender has made attempts to desist from offending in which case the aggravating effect of the previous offending will diminish.
10. Where the current offence is significantly less serious than the previous conviction (suggesting a decline in the gravity of offending), the previous conviction may carry less weight.
11. When considering the totality of previous offending a court should take a rounded view of the previous crimes and not simply aggregate the individual offences.
having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction

Other aggravating factors

Cost-cutting at the expense of safety
Deliberate concealment of illegal nature of activity
Breach of any court order
Effective from: 01 October 2019

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence

The more sophisticated, extensive or persistent the actions after the event, the more likely it is to increase the seriousness of the offence.

When sentencing young adult offenders (typically aged 18-25), consideration should also be given to the guidance on the mitigating factor relating to age and lack of maturity when considering the significance of such conduct.

Where any such actions are the subject of separate charges, this should be taken into account when assessing totality.
Poor health and safety record
Falsification of documentation or licences
Deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences in order to avoid scrutiny by authorities
Effective from: 01 October 2019

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm or those inherent in the offence
- An offence is more serious if the victim is vulnerable because of personal circumstances such as (but not limited to) age, illness or disability (unless the vulnerability of the victim is an element of the offence).
- Other factors such as the victim being isolated, incapacitated through drink or being in an unfamiliar situation may lead to a court considering that the offence is more serious.
- The extent to which any vulnerability may impact on the sentence is a matter for the court to weigh up in each case.
- Culpability will be increased if the offender targeted a victim because of an actual or perceived vulnerability.
- Culpability will be increased if the victim is made vulnerable by the actions of the offender (such as a victim who has been intimidated or isolated by the offender).
- Culpability is increased if an offender persisted in the offending once it was obvious that the victim was vulnerable (for example continuing to attack an injured victim).
- The level of harm (physical, psychological or financial) is likely to be increased if the victim is vulnerable.

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting mitigation

Effective from: 01 October 2019

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm
- First time offenders usually represent a lower risk of reoffending. Reoffending rates for first offenders are significantly lower than rates for repeat offenders. In addition, first offenders are normally regarded as less blameworthy than offenders who have committed the same crime several times already. For these reasons first offenders receive a mitigated sentence.
- Where there are previous offences but these are old and /or are for offending of a different nature, the sentence will normally be reduced to reflect that the new offence is not part of a pattern of offending and there is therefore a lower likelihood of reoffending.
- When assessing whether a previous conviction is ‘recent’ the court should consider the time gap since the previous conviction and the reason for it.
- Previous convictions are likely to be ‘relevant’ when they share characteristics with the current offence (examples of such characteristics include, but are not limited to: dishonesty, violence, abuse of position or trust, use or possession of weapons, disobedience of court orders). In general the more serious the previous offending the longer it will retain relevance.
Evidence of steps taken to remedy problem
Effective from: 01 October 2019

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

Assisting or cooperating with the investigation and /or making pre-court admissions may ease the effect on victims and witnesses and save valuable police time justifying a reduction in sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).
Good health and safety record
Effective health and safety procedures in place
Effective from: 01 October 2019

Care should be taken to avoid double counting factors including those already taken into account in assessing culpability or harm

Where an offender has self-reported to the authorities, particularly in circumstances where the offence may otherwise have gone undetected, this should reduce the sentence (separate from any guilty plea reduction).
Other events beyond the responsibility of the offender contributed to the death (however, actions of victims are unlikely to be considered contributory events. Offenders are required to protect workers or others who are neglectful of their own safety in a way which is reasonably foreseeable)

Steps 3 and 4

The court should ‘step back’, review and, if necessary, adjust the initial fine based on turnover to ensure that it fulfils the objectives of sentencing for these offences. The court may adjust the fine upwards or downwards, including outside the range.

Step 3 - Check whether the proposed fine based on turnover is proportionate to the overall means of the offender

General principles to follow in setting a fine

The court should finalise the appropriate level of fine in accordance with section 125 of the Sentencing Code, which requires that the fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and requires the court to take into account the financial circumstances of the offender.

Fines cannot and do not attempt to value a human life in money. The fine should meet the objectives of punishment, the reduction of offending through deterrence and removal of gain derived through the commission of the offence. The fine must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to management and shareholders the need to achieve a safe environment for workers and members of the public affected by their activities.

Review of the fine based on turnover

The court should ‘step back’, review and, if necessary, adjust the initial fine reached at step two to ensure that it fulfils the general principles set out above. The court may adjust the fine upwards or downwards including outside of the range.

The court should examine the financial circumstances of the offender in the round to assess the economic realities of the organisation and the most efficacious way of giving effect to the purposes of sentencing.

In finalising the sentence, the court should have regard to the following factors:

The profitability of an organisation will be a relevant factor. If an organisation has a small profit margin relative to its turnover, downward adjustment may be needed. If it has a large profit margin, upward adjustment may be needed.
Any quantifiable economic benefit derived from the offence, including through avoided costs or operating savings, should normally be added to the fine arrived at in step two. Where this is not readily available, the court may draw on information available from enforcing authorities and others about general costs of operating within the law.
Whether the fine will have the effect of putting the offender out of business will be relevant; in some cases this may be an acceptable consequence.

In considering the ability of the offending organisation to pay any financial penalty, the court can take into account the power to allow time for payment or to order that the amount be paid in instalments, if necessary over a number of years.

Step 4 - Consider other factors that may warrant adjustment of the proposed fine

The court should consider any wider impacts of the fine within the organisation or on innocent third parties; such as (but not limited to):

impact of the fine on offender’s ability to improve conditions in the organisation to comply with the law;
impact of the fine on employment of staff, service users, customers and local economy (but not shareholders or directors)

Where the fine will fall on public or charitable bodies, the fine should normally be substantially reduced if the offending organisation is able to demonstrate the proposed fine would have a significant impact on the provision of their services

Step 5 - Consider any factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution

The court should take into account section 74 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentence for assistance to prosecution) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.

Case law has established that there are no inflexible rules as to the method by which any reduction should be assessed nor the amount of the reduction. It will be a fact specific decision in each case. The rationale for making a reduction is the same whether the statutory procedure or the common law “text” procedure has been engaged. In principle, there is no reason to distinguish between the two procedures in terms of the extent of the reduction which is made. See also the relevant Criminal Procedure Rules: CPR 28.11 (statutory procedure) CPR 28.12 (text procedure).

The following sequence of matters for a sentencing court to consider reflects case law:

The court should assess the seriousness of the offences being sentenced following any relevant sentencing guidelines.
The court should then consider the quality and quantity of the material provided by the offender in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of crime. The court should take into account the period of time over which the information was provided and the seriousness of the offending to which it relates. Particular value should be attached to those cases where the offender provides evidence in the form of a witness statement or is prepared to give evidence at any subsequent trial, especially where the information either produces convictions for the most serious offences, or prevents them, or which leads to disruption of major criminal networks. In cases where it is too early to say what impact the information will have, the Court should take into account the potential value of the information provided.
This consideration should be made in the context of the nature and extent of the personal risks to, and potential consequences faced by, the offender and members of the offender’s family.
A guilty plea is not an essential prerequisite of the making of a reduction for information and assistance provided, but contesting guilt may be one of the factors relevant to the extent of the reduction made for that assistance. The extent to which an offender has been prepared to admit the full extent of their criminality is relevant to the level of the reduction.
Any reduction for a guilty plea is separate from and additional to the appropriate reduction for assistance provided by the offender. The reduction for the assistance provided by the offender should be assessed first to arrive at a notional sentence and any guilty plea reduction applied to that notional sentence.
A mathematical approach to determining the level of reduction for assistance to the authorities is liable to produce an inappropriate answer – the totality principle is fundamental.
Where the statutory procedure applies, the court should take into account that this requires offenders to reveal the whole of their previous criminal activities which will often entail pleading guilty to offences which the offender would never otherwise have faced.
An informer can generally only expect to receive credit once for past information or assistance, and for that reason the court should be notified whether particular information and assistance has been taken into account in imposing a previous sentence or when making an application to the Parole Board.
The court should enquire whether an offender has received payment for assistance provided and if so, how much. Financial reward and a reduction in sentence are complementary means of incentivising the disclosure of the criminal activities of others and therefore a financial reward, unless exceptionally generous, should play only a small, if any, part in the sentencer’s decision.
The totality principle is critical in the context of an offender who is already serving a sentence, and who enters into an agreement to provide information which discloses previous criminal activities and comes before the court to be sentenced for the new crimes, as well as for a review of the original sentence (under section 388 of the Sentencing Code).
Where an offender has committed serious crimes, neither the statutory nor common law process provide immunity from punishment, and, subject to appropriate reductions, an appropriate sentence should be passed. By providing assistance to the authorities the offender is entitled to a reduction from the sentence which would otherwise be appropriate to reflect the assistance provided to the administration of justice, and to encourage others to do the same.
It is only in the most exceptional case that the appropriate level of reduction would exceed three quarters of the total sentence which would otherwise be passed. The normal level for the provision of valuable information will be a reduction of somewhere between one half and two thirds of that sentence.
In cases where the information provided was of limited value, the reduction may be less than one half and where the information given is unreliable, vague, lacking in practical utility or already known to the authorities, any reduction made will be minimal.
The risk to an offender who provides information, and the importance of the public interest in encouraging criminals to inform on other criminals, will often mean that the court will not be able to make any explicit reference to the provision of information or the reduction of the sentence on that ground. The duty to give reasons for the sentence will be discharged in such cases by the judge stating that the court has considered all the matters of mitigation which have been brought to its attention. See also CPR 28.12(4).

Step 6 - Reduction for guilty pleas

The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 73 of the Sentencing Code and the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea guideline.

Step 7 - Compensation and ancillary orders

In all cases, the court must consider whether to make ancillary orders . These may include:

Publicity Orders (Section 10 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007)

A publicity order should ordinarily be imposed in a case of corporate manslaughter. It may require publication in a specified manner of:

the fact of conviction;
specified particulars of the offence;
the amount of any fine;
the terms of any remedial order.

The object of a publicity order is deterrence and punishment.

The order should specify with particularity the matters to be published in accordance with section 10(1). Special care should be taken with the terms of the particulars of the offence committed.
The order should normally specify the place where public announcement is to be made, and consideration should be given to indicating the size of any notice or advertisement required. It should ordinarily contain a provision designed to ensure that the conviction becomes known to shareholders in the case of companies and local people in the case of public bodies. Consideration should be given to requiring a statement on the offender’s website. A newspaper announcement may be unnecessary if the proceedings are certain to receive news coverage in any event, but if an order requires publication in a newspaper it should specify the paper, the form of announcement to be made and the number of insertions required.
(The prosecution should provide the court in advance of the sentencing hearing, and should serve on the offender, a draft of the form of order suggested and the judge should personally endorse the final form of the order.
Consideration should be given to stipulating in the order that any comment placed by the offender alongside the required announcement should be separated from it and clearly identified as such.

A publicity order is part of the penalty. Any exceptional cost of compliance should be considered in fixing the fine. It is not, however, necessary to fix the fine first and then deduct the cost of compliance.

Remediation (Section 9 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007)

An offender ought by the time of sentencing to have remedied any specific failings involved in the offence and if it has not, will be deprived of significant mitigation.

If, however, it has not, a remedial order should be considered if it can be made sufficiently specific to be enforceable. The prosecution is required by section 9(2) Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to give notice of the form of any such order sought, which can only be made on its application. The judge should personally endorse the final form of such an order.

The cost of compliance with such an order should not ordinarily be taken into account in fixing the fine; the order requires only what should already have been done.

Compensation

Where the offence has resulted in loss or damage, the court must consider whether to make a compensation order and must give reasons if it decides not to order compensation (Sentencing Code, s.55). The assessment of compensation in cases involving death or serious injury will usually be complex and will ordinarily be covered by insurance. In the great majority of cases the court should conclude that compensation should be dealt with in the civil courts, and should say that no order is made for that reason.

If compensation is awarded, priority should be given to the payment of compensation over payment of any other financial penalty where the means of the offender are limited.

Where the offender does not have sufficient means to pay the total financial penalty considered appropriate by the court, compensation and fine take priority over prosecution costs.

Ancillary orders - Crown Court

Step 8 - Totality principle

If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending behaviour in accordance with the Totality guideline.

Step 9 - Reasons

Section 52 of the Sentencing Code imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.

Give feedback about this page

Please tell us if there is an issue with this guideline to do with the accuracy of the content, how easy the guideline is to understand and apply, or accessibility/broken links.

Email *

Comment *

reCAPTCHA