Court of Appeal
Regina v Butt (Mehmood)
[2018] EWCA Crim 1617
2018 June 20; July 10
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Nicola Davies, Goss JJ
CrimeSentencePractice Fire safety offencesGuidance on proper approach to sentencing where no applicable sentencing guidelines Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541), art 32(1)(a)

There were no sentencing guidelines applicable to fire safety offences under article 32(1)(a) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. However, although the Definitive Guideline on Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences did not apply to offences committed contrary to the Order, the structure of the Guideline in identifying the steps involved in determining the seriousness of the offending might usefully be followed. In prosecutions for a breach of the Order the harm risked would be at the highest level, level A in the Guidelines, because of the risk of death or serious injury. The culpability would vary depending upon the circumstances of the offending. The law imposed a high standard for precautions to guard against the risk of fire, not only because of the very serious consequences which could flow from fire but also because it was so difficult to predict how and when it would start. The severe penalties evident in case of the breach of the Order did not depend upon such enhanced risk; its presence would be a seriously aggravating factor (paras 1, 23, 26, 27).

A combination of a fine and a suspended sentence or community sentencing was available when sentencing, and particularly where the offender had, or would have, resources from which a fine could be paid. It was particularly apt when the offending was related to a defendant’s business or employment, when dealing with offenders with substantial means or when the sentence allowed an offender to continue in well-remunerated work. “Resources” included both income and capital because the wealth of an offender might be reflected in substantial capital rather than high income. Defendants in health and safety and fire risk cases should place detailed evidence of their financial circumstances before the sentencing court, and if the court was not satisfied that it had been given sufficient reliable information the court would be entitled to draw an inference that the offender could pay any fine (paras 28–31).

R v Whirlpool UK Appliances Ltd (Practice Note) [2017] EWCA Crim 2186; [2018 1 WLR 1811 and R v Sandhu [2017] EWCA Crim 908; [2017] 4 WLR 160 considered.

Laura Phillips (instructed by Regal Law Solicitors) for the defendant.

Dan Pawson-Pounds (instructed by the London Fire Commissioner) for the prosecution.

Clare Barsby, Barrister.

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies