The first company to stand trial under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has been fined £385,000 after being found guilty by the jury at Winchester Crown Court.
The conviction of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd came after a two-week trial at the court, where the company answered charges by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the death of employee Alexander Wright on 5 September 2008.
In handing down the sentence on 17 February, the judge confirmed the company could pay the fine over a 10-year stretch, with £38,500 due every year of that period. The company does not have to pay any costs.
Mr Wright, 27, had been left working alone in a 3.5m-deep trench to ‘finish up’ after the managing director of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings, Peter Eaton (pictured centre), left for the day.
A short time later, the trench collapsed on Mr Wright and buried him. On hearing his cry for help, one of the plot-owners called the emergency services while another ran to the trench where he found Mr Wright buried up to his head. He climbed into the trench and removed some of the soil to enable the junior geologist to breathe, but a further torrent of earth fell into the pit, covering Mr Wright completely. Despite the plot-owner’s best efforts to free him, Mr Wright died of asphyxiation.
Peter Eaton had originally been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence, as well as a health and safety offence, in his own capacity but these charges were dropped after a successful application by his defence team last October on the grounds of his poor health. The company also originally faced a separate health and safety offence, but this was dropped by the prosecution in January this year after the judge raised the issue of whether the two different burdens of proof for the two remaining charges might confuse a jury.
In convicting the company on 15 February, the jury found that the company’s system of work in digging trial pits was wholly and unnecessarily dangerous. The court heard the company ignored industry guidance, which prohibited entry into excavations more than 1.2 metres deep, by allowing junior employees to enter into and work in unsupported trial pits, typically from 2 to 3.5 metres deep.
Detective Inspector Giulia Marogna, of Gloucestershire Constabulary, who investigated the case with the support of the HSE, described Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings’ approach to health and safety as “cavalier”, and the way it taught and supervised its junior engineers as “inherently dangerous”.
She added: “Every year people are killed and seriously injured following the collapse of an excavation. This case should serve as a reminder to the construction industry that vertical sides of excavations can never be relied upon to stay up without support, no matter how stable the ground may appear to be.”
Kevin Bridges (pictured, far right), partner at Pinsent Masons, which represented Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings, said: “The company will, over the coming days, consider all of its options, including any potential grounds of appeal. It remains to be seen whether this case has provided any general assistance in the interpretation of what is the most serious offence that a company can commit, and whether it will give rise to wider problems for the CPS in prosecuting this new and controversial legislation in the future.”
On behalf of the company and Peter Eaton, Bridges said they had held Alex Wright “in the highest regard and deeply regret the tragic incident which resulted in the loss of this talented young man”.
Paul Verrico, a solicitor-advocate with Eversheds, said the case is unlikely to be a landmark in terms of a test of the new law, but believes the conviction “will doubtless be hailed by both the CPS and the HSE as a success”.
He added that the physical stress of the process will not have been lost on those holding senior positions. He said: “It is well documented that the managing director [Peter Eaton] has been very ill, in no small part due to the stress of being charged with manslaughter in his own right and the undoubted impact on his business.
Commenting on the level of the fine, Helen Devery, a partner at Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP, said: “The size of the fine is intended to make a significant impact on any organisation and, while Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings may have had a modest turnover, larger and more profitable organisations, successfully convicted, can expect fines well above the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s £500,000 starting point.”
Following the jury’s verdict, Mr Wright’s family revealed their relief that “justice has been done” but stressed that, having visited the trench site, they couldn’t believe that “any employer of good integrity or sound intentions would allow or expect any employee to commit themselves to such a danger”.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
This is a tragic case, resulting in the loss of life but what we must all remember is WE have the obligation to OUR OWN safety. Common sense should have prevailed and the individual should not have entered the trench.
An interesting point to note is that the fine is 250% of the company’s current turnover, albeit that the fine is spread over 10 years. Given the fact that this company is very small, larger firms could, in theory, face fines in the 10s of millions. Other company directors may also look at the impact this whole process has had on Mr Eaton’s health. They may well ask themselves how well they would cope and maybe this will encourage them to improve on health and safety.
What price a life eh..?
I certainly hope the grounds for Mr Eatons ill health is justified, if he is still MD and running the business or that would be outrageous
The case against Mr Eaton was dropped ‘because of ill health’ a slim reason.
I am certain Mr Wright would have been delighted to ‘enjoy’ ill health had he been able, ie were he alive!
Although I am pleased that the CMCHA has finally been used to prosecute, I feel that there is a need for improvement. There should be a provision to prosecute an individual. I know that we already have section 36, 37 of HSAWA but I think CMCHA could go further.
Azzy…he is still running the company
I thought the change in the law would result in individuals (Managers, Company Directors) being charged with manslaughter with imprisonment being an option, not a non-discript company being fined
This judgement allows him to liquidate the company with impunity.
Only when one goes down (prison) iother will sit up.
Sadly the Act does not provide for this.
Fleck
Come on Andrew – did you read the full aritcle? The HSE and police clearly felt that the engineers training and supervision was at fault and it would be grossly unfair to say that in this case it was the workers responsibility – the DI investigating the case described Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings’ approach to health and safety as “cavalier”, and the way it taught and supervised its junior engineers as “inherently dangerous.
What a light sentance. It effectively means that no justice has been done in this case. No doubt the company or their advisors will find some loop hole in which to exploit the terms of the fine.
Until people who are convicted of this type of offence face real jail time nothing is going to change.
Yet Again!!!!
Price on Life Syndrome££££ Wins Again!! they need Lockiing Up! for good! Oop’s! I’ll never be an MP!! just a sad H&S Twatt!!
Do we really know if this could happen again, the loss is tragic and unforgivable, i would also like to see the company suspended from trading until it is proven by the HSE that improvements and fundamental changes have taken place so that this tragic accident could not happen to someone else again.
We are better off without companies. that openly ignore the guidelines
I am wondering if there is a possibility that ‘Geotechnical Holdings Ltd’ may go ‘pop’ due to financial problems in two years time…………. and then a ‘Geotechnical Holdings (South West) ltd appears…. resetting the financial meter with all debts cleared????? Mmmmmmm?
Personally I think the CPS have failed in their duties. Peter Eaton should have been prosecuted. His health should have been taken into account on sentencing, not prosecution.
£38,000 a year over 10 years is too little, especially as the company does not have to pay any costs.
This case highlights why this act is a failure. Individuals MUST be held accountable for their actions. The law MUST be changed so that directors of organisations can be held accountable.
Victoria, don’t know where or how you obtained this information – but it does not make it right. Excavations are inherently dangerous. The level of risk will depend on a number of factors, including the condition of the substrate. Hence a geological company should be more informed than most of the danger of collapsing excavations.
I suspect Peter Eaton managed h&s by a wing and a prayer – like so many others. He was caught and a young man died. He should accept the punishment with good grace.
Whilst we welcome anything that will protect workers from “cavalier attitudes” to Health and Safety surely this should be made more public and that we should make it easier to access training courses. We all know during recessions it is the first part of the budget that goes “elsewhere”. Let’s not bury our heads in the sand, there are lots of people prepared to take risks, both employer’s and employees. Whilst this is a tradegy, how many other of these unsafe practices continue?? No excuse
What amazes me is that the power to disqualify directors has not been used even on the basis of the evidence outlined
You’re being far too soft Brad. £35k a year is a small figure for a terrible failing. The fine will not act as a deterrent to larger companies. It seems that you are suggesting that Peter Eaton has suffered greatly as a result of this incident and perhaps that should be taken into account. Mr Eaton’s health might have been a lot better if he had put a safe system of work in place. Perhaps you should save your sympathy for Mr Wright and his family.
Alexander Wright’s family are quoted as saying that they couldn’t believe that “any employer of good integrity or sound intentions would allow or expect any employee to commit themselves to such a danger”.
What a shame that these were not the words of the judge, and that this was not taken into account when deciding to drop the prosecution against Mr Eaton.
Plain and simple – he also should never be allowed to continue in his role as Company Director. He may have received a hefty fine, payable over 10yrs (????) but will that change his outlook to safety at work? Will he spend more money on implementing best practice? A difficult piece of law that probably won’t make much difference to the performance of such companies in the future.
You are all missing the fundamental point here; it has been common practice for small and medium sized geological survey companies to have unsupported trial pits for years. This trial may force firms to purchase suitable shoring/ battening or risk likewise. In such a economic time, the liklihood is that they will carry on regardless, just as numerous scaffold firms carry on erecting dodgy scaffold!