Fleet News

First driving case under corporate manslaughter

Baldwins Crane Hire has become the first firm to be charged with corporate manslaughter where a company driver was killed.

Lindsay Easton was driving a heavy crane down a steep road away from a wind farm at Scout Moor, Lancashire, when the vehicle crashed into an earth bank and fell from the road.

It is alleged that the brakes failed.

After reviewing the evidence gathered by Lancashire Police and the Health and Safety Executive during their investigation into the death of Easton, Jane Wragg, specialist prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said: “I have concluded that Baldwins Crane Hire should be charged with an offence of corporate manslaughter.

“I have also concluded that there is sufficient evidence to charge the company Baldwins Crane Hire with offences under Section 2 and Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.”

Wragg explained that she believed there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest. The case is listed for trial in October.

Eight companies have been convicted under corporate manslaughter legislation, since it was first introduced in April, 2008. Two organisations have been acquitted, while a further four companies, including Baldwins Crane Hire, are awaiting trial.

Julia Messervy-Whiting, a partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: “There has been a surprising lack of convictions under the Act and only one of those resulted in the minimum £500,000 anticipated by the guidelines.”

Recent cases have seen fines ranging from £20,000 to £200,000, while publicity orders, where an organisation must advertise its failings through a public notice in the press, have only been ordered in two cases.

Messervy-Whiting said: “Prosecutors have faced quite a lot of criticism for failing to make more of what was considered to be landmark legislation.”

As a consequence, the CPS is now pursuing more cases year-on-year and the trend is set to continue, she suggested.

“It’s in this context that companies and their insurers shouldn’t dismiss the risk of prosecution,” she said.

New sentencing guidelines are also expected to be introduced in the next few weeks, which will see much tougher sanctions imposed for breaches of corporate manslaughter and health and safety legislation.

Messervy-Whiting explained: “It’s been suggested that one of the reasons for these new guidelines is public unease about the low levels of fines imposed in some cases.”

In fact, when Michael Caplan QC, announced the consultation on sentencing guidelines in February, he said: “We want to ensure that these crimes don’t pay.

“Our proposals will help a consistent approach to sentencing, allowing fair and proportionate sentences across the board, with some of the most serious offenders facing tougher penalties.”

For the purpose of sentencing, companies will be defined by their turnover as micro, small, medium or large. A micro organisation will have a turnover of no more than £2 million, while a large organisation would have a turnover of £50m and over.

If convicted under corporate manslaughter legislation where there was a high level of culpability, a large organisation would face a fine of between £4.8m and £20m, with a suggested starting point of £7.5m.

A micro organisation found guilty with a lower level  of culpability would face a fine of somewhere between £180,000 and £540,000, with a suggested starting point of £300,000, for example.

Meanwhile, companies found guilty under health and safety legislation where a flagrant disregard for the law or deliberate breach is proven would face a fine with a starting point ranging from £250,000 for a micro organisation to £4m for a large company.

Messervy-Whiting concluded: “Even for the lesser health and safety offences, the scope for higher fines is much, much greater and will have a massive effect on organisations found guilty.”


Leave a comment for your chance to win £20 of John Lewis vouchers.

Every issue of Fleet News the editor picks his favourite comment from the past two weeks – get involved for your chance to appear in print and win!

Comment as guest

Login  /  Register


  • Paul Sinkinson - 28/07/2015 09:13

    Subject to the vehicle type I would have thought that a failure in the air brake system would activate the spring release which should automatically put the brakes on through lack of air pressure. Has this been evaluated. Also, usually, on unmade tracks drivers often over correct the steering when the vehicle tilts and can in certain cases lose control. A good accident investigator should be able to determine this cause.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
  • Stephen Oldham - 28/07/2015 10:36

    It will be really interesting to see what happens in this case. The corporate manslaughter laws have not resulted in the number of convictions that the government expected since 2008 when they were brought in. Cases like this are difficult and expensive to prosecute. They can also get bogged down in long and technical arguments about disclosure of evidence. I wonder whether the CPS will lose the taste for prosecution just like HMRC and the Serious Fraud Office. They have realised that American style deferred prosecutions contingent on payment of agreed fines are much better. Of course prosecuting a company can only ever result in a fine. You can't send a company to prison like you can an individual.

    Reply as guest

    Login  /  Register
Compare costs of your company cars

Looking to acquire new vehicles? Check how much they'll cost to run with our Car Running Cost calculator.

What is your BIK car tax liability?

The Fleet News car tax calculator lets you work out tax costs for both employer and employee