Half a century of safety enforcement

The start of this year marked the 50th anniversary of the start of something that now seems so ever present that it is hard to imagine a world without it – the Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’). HSE came into being through the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, a hugely significant consolidation and improvement of existing safety standards.

So, how has it gone?

There have been many changes since HSE’s creation – new offences such as Corporate Manslaughter, the introduction of the Sentencing Guidelines, shifts in industrial practices – all of which make for a very different landscape from those early years. Fines that used to be measured in hundreds might now stretch to millions. Directors that might once have received nominal fines, face up to 2 years in prison – longer in the case of manslaughter.

This is the second of a series of brief updates looking at current cases going through the courts in recent weeks – these cases were all reported in February 2025 – all cases referred to are published here.

Size – fines and companies

The first thing that jumps out is the relatively modest number of cases concluded in February. Of those cases the fines are relatively low – only one over £100,000 (two £100,000 exactly) as well as two individuals receiving prison sentences, albeit one individual issued with a suspended sentence. One company was fined over £1 million but that was due to its previous enforcement record, having been fined £2 million in 2022 for a previous incident.  It is notable that all bar perhaps one case reported by HSE in February 2025 involve companies at the smaller end of the scale. This is significant because it has a huge influence on the size of fine imposed.

Fines are now set according to the Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline (‘the guidelines’ [FN3 - 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 – Sentencing). The Guidelines set out a detailed process for assessment with a variety of adjustments but the most significant factors are the size of the company, the extent of the failing and the severity and likelihood of adverse consequences that might have resulted (and sometimes did). A large company (turnover > £50M) might be fined five times more for a fairly minor breach that risked only minor injury (e.g. Large - ‘harm category 3/medium culpability’ – a range of £130,000 - £750,000) than a ‘micro’ company (<£2M turnover) might be fined for the very worst offence entailing high risk of death or serious injury (Micro – ‘harm category 1/very high culpability’ – a range of £150,000 - £450,000).

What does this mean in practice?

All of February’s fines need to be scaled up to measure the risk to your organisation. A fine for a small or micro company can be read across to the appropriate table where necessary – micro (<£2M), small (<£10M), medium (<£50M) and large (£50M+) (and ‘very large’ – case law permits increases above the upper bounds where appropriate on account of scale for much larger entities).

Some will represent fines discounted for credit – a 1/3 reduction. Again, the risk needs to be scaled up for a worst-case analysis.

So, a £133,000 fine imposed on a micro company, say, might represent a £200,000 fine after trial. That in turn, might represent a finding of ‘high culpability’ and ‘harm category 1’ (high risk of death or serious injury) – the top end of which reaches to £250,000. Read across to the table for large companies, the same range reaches £6,000,000; a fine at a comparable level would be £4,800,000.

This does not explain why this month’s focus has solely been on smaller companies though it is reasonable to assume that these sometimes represent simpler and easier prosecutions, with the lower ratio of safety resource to risks undertaken than much larger companies with devoted specialist teams. HSE though has not been shy in recent years of bringing cases against larger organisations – last year nine companies faced fines above £1million across the year. 

Focus

What about the industries and risks targeted?

What’s noticeable in all cases reported in February is the variety, with two cases in particular being unusual.

Two involved two young children, both suffering fatal injuries. A child suffered fatal head injuries after an incident at an indoor ski centre and the other struck by a telehandler on a farm. In the first case the company received a modest fine and the second involved an individual, who was given a 12-month prison sentence. 

Two involve falls from height during scaffold work. One of these cases saw a self-employed roofer given a suspended prison sentence (ie. a prison sentence that does not take effect immediately but indicates that the offence merited a prison sentence which may be ‘activated’ in case of further offences/breaches). The other case saw the company face a second charge after an employee’s leg became entangled in moving machinery. As mentioned previously this company received a fine of £1 million due it’s previous enforcement history, after receiving a £2 million fine in 2022. Work at height and entanglement hazards have long been key HSE focuses – understandably given the risks involved.  

One involved a fatality after an employee suffered fatal injuries after a large tractor tyre explosion, with the company involved, a farm partnership, receiving a modest fine.

One involved crush injuries at a shipyard, with the employee suffering multiple rib fractures and internal injuries. The company received a modest fine. 

Age

The time between index incident/inspection and the case reaching court varies widely – from 20 months to over  5 years. The longest running case involved two separate incidents, 6 months apart. Other long running cases involved fatalities which always entails longer investigation, often because initial investigations are conducted by police/CPS before the matter is handed to HSE to progress.

This tallies with recent experience: it is rare to reach any form of conclusion under 18 months, and any matter which requires litigation and trial will inevitably span several years.

Summary

The picture from February reflects a broad span of enforcement activity across diverse sectors. It is just a snapshot but an indication that HSE can and will enforce wherever they feel standards are not being met, regardless of whether any accident has occurred. Enforcement is not limited to cases where serious injury has occurred.

The relatively modest numbers should not offer false comfort. As noted above, many of these fines would have likely fallen in seven figures had the companies involved been larger.

All the cases serve as reminders of how important it is to take proper care over safety compliance and to obtain prompt advice in the event of HSE contact. It is far, far better to deal with matters properly and promptly than it is to let issues run on and develop.

For further advice or information on Health & Safety issues, please contact Stephen Barnfield, Aoife Ryan and Dave Walker.