B&Q Plc, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 2297 (27 September 2005)

B&Q Plc, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 2297 (27 September 2005)

The jury's verdicts were not inconsistent as they could logically differentiate between the duties owed to employees and non-employees under s.2(1) and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; the sentencing and costs orders were appropriate, though the costs order was reduced to reflect aborted trials and acquittals.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Crim 2297
Parties
Respondent: REGINA; Appellant: B&Q plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; costs order varied.
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Verdicts, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Corporate Liability, Sentencing, Costs Orders
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Inconsistent Verdicts Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Corporate Liability Sentencing Costs Orders

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REGINA

Respondent

B&Q plc

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury verdicts were inconsistent regarding counts under s.2(1) and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
  2. 2 Appropriateness of sentencing and fines
  3. 3 Appropriateness of costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's verdicts were not inconsistent as they could logically differentiate between the duties owed to employees and non-employees under s.2(1) and s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; the sentencing and costs orders were appropriate, though the costs order was reduced to reflect aborted trials and acquittals.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; costs order varied.

Orders

  • Fine of £550,000 upheld
  • Costs order reduced to £177,792.28