B&Q Plc, R v

B&Q Plc, R v

The jury's verdicts were not logically inconsistent; they could rationally find the company guilty under s.3(1) for failing to protect non-employees while acquitting under s.2(1) regarding employees, given the different risks and standards applicable. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, considering the company's size, culpability, and the seriousness of the offence. The costs order was excessive and should be reduced to reflect the costs of aborted trials and acquittals.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: B&Q plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction, Sentence, and Costs
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; appeal against costs order allowed in part
Legal Topics
Inconsistent Verdicts, Employer's Duty of Care, Reasonable Practicability, Sentencing of Companies, Costs in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Inconsistent Verdicts Employer's Duty of Care Reasonable Practicability Sentencing of Companies Costs in Criminal Proceedings

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

B&Q plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction, Sentence, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  3. 3 Whether the costs order was just and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's verdicts were not logically inconsistent; they could rationally find the company guilty under s.3(1) for failing to protect non-employees while acquitting under s.2(1) regarding employees, given the different risks and standards applicable. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, considering the company's size, culpability, and the seriousness of the offence. The costs order was excessive and should be reduced to reflect the costs of aborted trials and acquittals.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; appeal against costs order allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence upheld
  • Fine of £550,000 confirmed