Nestle UK, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 January 2021, in the Crown Court at The City, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, contrary to regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. On 13 January 2021, the Defendant was sentenced by Judge Gibson to a fine of £640,000. The Defendant renewed its application for permission to appeal the size of the fine following refusal by a single judge.

On 13 February 2016, an employee, referred to as the Injured Worker, suffered a significant injury while working at Company A's factory. The Injured Worker was monitoring a conveyor belt that kept slipping and was crouching near unguarded rollers when his right hand, holding an emery cloth, was caught in the rollers, causing severe injury. The Injured Worker suffered compound fractures and residual weakness following surgery and absence from work.

The original indictment charged the Defendant with breach of section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which imposes a general duty on employers to ensure employee health and safety. Subsequently, an additional count was added alleging breach of regulation 11 of the 1998 Regulations and section 33 of the 1974 Act. The Defendant sought to stay proceedings due to delay but the application was dismissed. The Defendant consented to the amended indictment and pleaded guilty to the new count on the first day of trial, with a not guilty verdict recorded on the original count.

The sentencing hearing was conducted with close reference to the relevant sentencing guideline for health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter, and food safety offences. The judge followed the guideline’s multi-step process to determine culpability, harm, likelihood of harm, additional factors, and appropriate fine levels, ultimately imposing the fine of £640,000 after reductions for mitigation and a guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the uplift in the fine to reflect actual harm was justified despite disputed facts about the Injured Worker's conduct at the time of injury.
2. Whether the reduction in discount for the guilty plea from the standard 33% to 20% was appropriate given the timing and history of the plea.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred by not distinguishing between strict liability offences and broader health and safety breaches in calculating the fine.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant contended that some fault attached to the Injured Worker, who was allegedly cleaning the roller rather than merely observing it, and argued the judge erred by resolving this factual dispute without formal evidence, thus unfairly applying an uplift for actual harm.
• The Defendant argued the judge should have allowed full credit for the guilty plea, rather than reducing it to 20%, given the circumstances of the case.
• The Defendant submitted that the sentencing should have reflected the strict liability nature of the offence, warranting a lesser fine than for broader breaches under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Prosecution maintained the Injured Worker was simply observing the conveyor belt operation, and the failure to guard the machinery was a significant cause of the injury, justifying the uplift in sentencing.
• They contended that the delay in the Defendant’s guilty plea justified a reduced discount from the standard rate.
• They argued that the sentencing guideline applies equally to strict liability offences and broader breaches, and no distinction should be made in sentencing based on the nature of the offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully applied the sentencing guideline, which involves a multi-stage process assessing culpability, seriousness of harm risked, likelihood of harm, additional factors, and the size of the fine relative to the Defendant's turnover.

At Stage 1, the court agreed with the judge's finding of medium culpability based on the Defendant’s limited risk assessments and failure to guard exposed machinery parts.

At Stage 2, the harm was agreed to be Level B, with a medium likelihood of harm found at Stage 3.

Regarding additional factors at Stage 4, the court upheld the judge’s finding that two factors applied: exposure of multiple workers to risk and the failure to guard being a significant cause of actual harm. The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the factual dispute about the Injured Worker's conduct should have prevented the uplift, emphasizing that the guideline excludes victim conduct from sentencing considerations.

At Stage 5, the court endorsed the judge’s approach of increasing the fine starting point due to the Defendant’s very large turnover, which was approximately 30 times the guideline’s large organisation threshold. The judge’s doubling of the fine before mitigation was accepted as appropriate.

At Stage 6, the court agreed with the judge’s discretion to reduce the discount for the guilty plea from the standard 33% to 20%, given the delay and strategic timing of the plea by the Defendant.

On the third ground, the court rejected the Defendant’s submission that strict liability offences should attract lesser fines, noting the sentencing guideline applies equally to both strict liability and broader offences under the Health and Safety Act. The guideline focuses on culpability and harm risk, which the judge properly considered.

Overall, the court found the judge conducted a comprehensive and appropriate sentencing exercise fully in line with the guideline and the facts of the case.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Defendant’s renewed application for permission to appeal the size of the fine.

This decision upholds the £640,000 fine imposed, reflecting the Defendant’s culpability, the harm caused, and its significant turnover. No new precedent was established; the case confirms the application of the sentencing guideline to strict liability offences and underscores the limited relevance of victim conduct in sentencing for health and safety breaches.