From the courts: what you need to know

Following the tragic court case earlier this year involving the youngest person ever to be killed on a building site, Connect looks at whether we’re likely to see an increase in prison sentences handed down for deaths at work.

The case

In April 2007, 15-year-old Adam Gosling was employed by sub-contractor Maldon Groundworks as a £25-a-day labourer to work on a large-scale garden landscaping and refurbishment project in Hadley Wood.

Work was being carried out on an outdoor swimming pool. The existing pool house had been demolished, leaving an exposed wall which had a large crack running down the centre. Darren Fowler, project manager for the site, had previously been warned that the wall was in such a state of disrepair that it was only safe to be taken down brick by brick.

Colin Holtom, owner of Maldon Groundworks, had given Adam and his 18-year-old brother, Dean, a sledgehammer and pneumatic drill to do the job. Dean Gosling described how when the wall started to lean over, Colin Holtom told Adam to climb into the neighbouring garden and pull it back. As Adam attempted to do this, the wall split and collapsed on him. A post-mortem gave the cause of death as head injuries and a fractured skull.

The verdict

Colin Holtom, a 64-year-old builder from Essex, was jailed for three years at the Old Bailey after pleading guilty to a charge of gross negligence manslaughter relating to the death of Adam Gosling.

Darren Fowler, a 47-year-old contractor, was also jailed for 12 months after admitting breaches of health and safety legislation and running a company whilst being disqualified from being a director.

Mr Holtom, who was described as having a laissez-faire attitude towards safety, failed to provide Adam and his brother with even the most basic safety equipment such as hard hats, high visibility jackets and steel toe-capped boots.

The judge, when sentencing Mr Holtom, described him as having a cavalier and thoroughly irresponsible attitude to safety and that he had simply left the brothers to their own devices to carry out a job which he knew to be inherently dangerous if not done properly. Mr Holtom was told that his actions were criminal and had led to the unlawful killing of a young boy on the threshold of his life and caused utter devastation to his family.

Conclusion

While Mr Fowler pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, his prison term was imposed for the offence of holding the office of director while being disqualified from doing so. However, had this accident occurred after the 16 January 2009, when the Health and Safety (Offences) Act came into force, it would have been open to the Crown Court to sentence Mr Fowler to up to two years in prison for the breach of Section 2(1) – especially as it was shown that he had known about the poor condition of the wall for some considerable time.

Likewise, Mr Holtom could have been sentenced for up to two years for causing Adam Gosling's death as a result of a breach of Section 2(1) had he not been convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.

The criteria for establishing an offence under Section 2(1) is significantly less than that for gross negligence manslaughter. Hence, we are likely to see an increase in prosecutions under section 2(1) against individuals since this will be the easier route for regulators who are looking for the court to impose a prison sentence where a death has occurred.

Certainly, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act has led the police to take far more of an interest in workplace deaths and they’re investigating an ever-growing number of incidents.

Clearly, a prosecution can have a marked effect on the fortunes of a company. But equally, the investigation alone can have a significant impact on the business and the morale of the workforce.

As the offence of corporate manslaughter also focuses on the acts and omissions of senior managers, there’s expected to be an increase in the number of prosecutions brought against individual directors, managers and officers, under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, as the actions of those involved in the running of the business will come under ever more scrutiny.

Therefore, had Mr Fowler and Mr Holtom been employees, the prosecution would likely have encompassed both individuals (under Section 37) as well as their employer (under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act).

Our thanks to DWF for helping with this article.