Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd, R. v

Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd, R. v

The original fine of £10 million imposed on Balfour Beatty was severe but not wrong in principle given the systemic failure and consequences. However, the disparity between Balfour Beatty's and Railtrack's fines was excessive and failed the test of proportionality. The fine was reduced to £7.5 million to restore...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Statutory Duty, Sentencing Principles, Corporate Manslaughter, Systemic Negligence, Proportionality of Fines
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Corporate Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Sentencing Principles Corporate Manslaughter Systemic Negligence Proportionality of Fines

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the fine imposed on Balfour Beatty excessive and disproportionate?
  2. 2 Did the trial judge properly assess Balfour Beatty's culpability?
  3. 3 Should a discount have been applied for the guilty plea?

Ratio Decidendi

The original fine of £10 million imposed on Balfour Beatty was severe but not wrong in principle given the systemic failure and consequences. However, the disparity between Balfour Beatty's and Railtrack's fines was excessive and failed the test of proportionality. The fine was reduced to £7.5 million to restore appropriate proportionality while maintaining the deterrent and punitive objectives.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Fine of £10 million quashed and replaced with a fine of £7.5 million.