Connors Building & Restoration Ltd, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a trial before Her Honour Judge Brandon and a jury in the Crown Court at The City, on 20 August 2019 the Appellant Company was convicted of a single count of failing to comply with section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. On 7 October 2019, the Appellant Company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £68,192.15 and a victim surcharge of £170. The Appellant Company appeals, with leave of the single judge, against that conviction, arguing that the prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive ("HSE") should have been stayed as an abuse of process. The judge had refused an application to stay on 10 July 2019.

On 2 June 2017, an employee of the Appellant Company was injured while operating a rip saw in the joinery workshop. The injury was caused by an offcut piece of timber that kicked back and impaled the employee's right leg, causing serious nerve and arterial damage. The employee required surgery, hospitalisation for six days, and was unable to walk unaided for 16 weeks, with ongoing pain and a limp. The employee did not return to work until the end of August 2017 and was still taking painkillers at the time of trial two years later.

The injury resulted from the employee's failure to lower the crown guard and to use a stand designed to catch timber offcuts. Expert evidence agreed the accident would not have occurred if the safety equipment had been properly used.

The HSE investigated the incident, led by an inspector who reviewed the company's method statement and risk assessment. After completing the investigation, the inspector recommended prosecution to the principal inspector, who agreed that both evidential and public interest tests were met and that prosecution was a proportionate response.

The Appellant Company made representations arguing that prosecution was not in the public interest, emphasizing the risk of losing its sole customer contract and subsequent insolvency with job losses. The principal inspector considered these points but maintained the decision to prosecute.

The judge on appeal considered the application of the HSE's Enforcement Policy Statement ("EPS") and Enforcement Management Model ("EMM"), the seriousness of the breach, the risk gap assessment described as "extreme," and the public interest in prosecution. The judge found no abuse of process or oppression in the decision to prosecute and rejected the appellant's submissions that the prosecution was disproportionate or unreasonable.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision to prosecute the Appellant Company complied with the HSE's Enforcement Policy Statement and Enforcement Management Model, including proper consideration of the consequences of prosecution for the company and its employees.
2. Whether the prosecution constituted an abuse of process on grounds of being oppressive or vexatious.
3. Whether the decision to prosecute was Wednesbury unreasonable, i.e., irrational or disproportionate given the circumstances.
4. Whether the consequences of conviction should have been considered as grounds to stay the prosecution rather than as mitigation at sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in concluding that the prosecution complied fully with the EPS, particularly by failing to adequately consider the economic impact on the company and workforce.
• The likely closure of the Appellant Company resulting from conviction was oppressive and should have led to a stay of proceedings.
• The decision to prosecute was Wednesbury unreasonable and against the public interest, as no reasonable prosecutor would have proceeded.
• The judge wrongly treated the consequences of conviction as matters for mitigation rather than grounds for abuse of process.
• The HSE failed to pursue the least burdensome enforcement action, neglecting the principle of proportionality under the Regulators Code and related statutory duties.
• The Appellant relied on statutory provisions including the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, Regulators Code 2014, and Deregulation Act 2015 to argue that regulatory decisions should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, and risk-based.

Respondent's Arguments

• The principal inspector properly applied the evidential and public interest tests under the EPS, EMM, and the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
• The decision to prosecute was proportionate given the seriousness of the breach and injury caused.
• The HSE considered economic consequences but found the evidence speculative and insufficient to prevent prosecution.
• Alternative enforcement such as an Improvement Notice was not appropriate as the equipment had been removed post-incident.
• The risk gap was assessed as extreme, justifying prosecution in the public interest.
• The Appellant’s submissions about economic impact and potential job losses were speculative and contradicted by subsequent contract renewals and diversification possibilities.
• Abuse of process requires more than breach of policy; it requires misconduct or oppression, which was not demonstrated.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the application of the HSE's Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS) and Enforcement Management Model (EMM) in the decision to prosecute. It accepted the principal inspector's assessment that the evidential and public interest tests were satisfied, particularly given the extreme risk gap and serious injury caused by the breach of well-established safety standards.

The court rejected the appellant's contention that the economic consequences of prosecution were inadequately considered, finding that the evidence of potential job losses and contract termination was speculative. The judge's finding that no enquiries had been made with the sole customer was noted, but the court accepted that the company's apprehensions about tendering outcomes were not supported by evidence.

The court analysed the statutory context, including the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Regulators Code 2014, concluding that the statutory growth duty did not apply to the prosecutorial decision itself but only to prior regulatory functions. Even if it did, the HSE had complied with the principles of proportionality and economic consideration as set out in the EPS.

Regarding proportionality, the court agreed that prosecution was not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offence and injury. The alternative enforcement option of an Improvement Notice was not viable as the equipment had been removed, and such a notice would not address the public interest in prosecution for serious breaches causing serious harm.

The court emphasised the established legal principle that decisions to prosecute by independent bodies are afforded deference and will only be interfered with in exceptional cases of abuse of process involving misconduct or oppression. The appellant failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances.

Finally, the court found no merit in the claim that consequences of conviction should be considered as grounds for staying prosecution rather than mitigation at sentencing, noting the judge's clear rejection of speculative claims about closure and job losses.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The decision confirms that prosecutions by the HSE following serious breaches causing significant injury, where evidential and public interest tests are met, will not be stayed absent exceptional circumstances of abuse of process or oppression. The court affirmed the principle that economic consequences and proportionality considerations are taken into account but do not override public interest in prosecution where serious harm has occurred. No new precedent was established; the ruling reinforces established standards of prosecutorial discretion and judicial deference in regulatory prosecutions.