Jarvis Facilities Ltd, R v

Jarvis Facilities Ltd, R v

Public service cases involving breaches of health and safety law may attract higher penalties than comparable private sector cases due to the significant public element and trust involved. However, the fine must remain proportionate to the actual risk and circumstances. In this case, the original fine was excessive given the absence of death or serious injury and the mitigating factors present.

Parties
Respondent: The Crown; Appellant: Jarvis Facilities Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Corporate Liability, Public Safety, Railway Accidents
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Sentencing Corporate Liability Public Safety Railway Accidents

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

Parties

The Crown

Respondent

Jarvis Facilities Ltd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for a corporate defendant convicted under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 where no death or serious injury occurred but there was significant risk to public safety?
  2. 2 Should public service cases attract higher penalties than comparable private sector cases?

Ratio Decidendi

Public service cases involving breaches of health and safety law may attract higher penalties than comparable private sector cases due to the significant public element and trust involved. However, the fine must remain proportionate to the actual risk and circumstances. In this case, the original fine was excessive given the absence of death or serious injury and the mitigating factors present.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Fine reduced from £400,000 to £275,000
  • Costs order of £28,061 upheld