The Health and Safety Executive’s recent prosecutions

In recent months, the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) has brought several successful prosecutions in respect of work health and safety (“WH&S”) offences, resulting in the imposition of very significant financial penalties.

Notably, the prosecutions arose from routine inspections conducted by the HSE, and in circumstances where no actual injury or damage had occurred. For companies and directors, the outcome of these prosecutions reinforces the importance of implementing and maintaining appropriate risk management procedures, and the significant financial consequences which can arise from a failure to do so. We consider two such cases in turn below.

ASM Metal Recycling Limited

The HSE prosecuted ASM Metal Recycling Limited (“ASM Metal”), which operates five metal recycling sites across the United Kingdom, for allegedly breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (“the Act”). This section imposes a duty on employers “to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work” of their employees.

The prosecution arose following the conduct of routine visits by an HSE inspector to ASM Metal’s premises in Aylesbury on 3 and 8 August 2023. While at the premises, the HSE inspector observed and captured video footage of dangerous working practices, including a failure to segregate moving vehicles from pedestrians as waste was being manually sorted. The video footage established that there were no measures implemented by ASM Metal to prevent reversing vehicles from coming into contact with pedestrian workers on site.

Following an investigation conducted by the HSE, it was identified that, although ASM Metal had previously identified the risks of pedestrian-vehicle collision on its premises, it had failed to implement effective control measures to prevent this. The HSE had also issued four previous enforcement notices on ASM Metal between 2010 and 2018, as well as Notification of Contravention letters in 2021 and 2023. These factors led to the HSE’s decision to refer ASM Metal for prosecution under the Act.

ASM Metal pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Act. On 22 October 2024, the company was fined £650,000 and was ordered to pay £5,885 in costs.

Oriental Delight (UK) Limited

The HSE prosecuted Oriental Delight (UK) Limited (“Oriental”), a North London food manufacturer, for failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. The charges were brought under The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (“the PUWE Regulations”), which place a duty on employers to ensure the work equipment they own, operate, and have control over is safe to use at all times.

As with ASM Metal, the prosecution of Oriental arose following a routine inspection by the HSE, in which the HSE inspector identified multiple “failings” relating to the guarding of machinery. The HSE had also previously issued prohibition notices to Oriental in both 2016 and 2019, with Oriental’s history of non-compliance taken into account in the decision to refer the company for prosecution.

On 4 September 2024, Oriental pleaded guilty to three breaches of Regulation 11(1) of the PUWE Regulations. The company was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,020.

Other prosecutions

The successful prosecutions of ASM Metal and Oriental are just two examples of a recent trend of cases brought by the HSE in which the impugned conduct has not caused any actual damage or injury. Other examples from October 2024 alone involved the imposition of a £50,000 fine on a cosmetics firm after an HSE inspection uncovered electrical failings at its premises, and a £900,000 fine being imposed on an accommodation provider in respect of its response to the detection of legionella in its water systems. In both cases, there was no materialisation of risk, and no damage or injury was sustained.

Key takeaways

These cases together provide valuable lessons for companies and directors regarding the importance of company risk management protocols and procedures:

• Firstly, the cases illustrate the significant pecuniary penalties which may attach to breaches of the WH&S legislation overseen by the HSE. In cases involving breaches of the duties under sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, for offences committed on and after 12 March 2015, there is no limit on the fines which may be imposed by both the Magistrates and Crown Courts. The penalties imposed in recent cases brought by the HSE show the significant financial implications which may arise from WH&S breaches.
• Secondly, the HSE will readily prosecute companies even in cases where no actual injury or damage is occasioned. In the prosecutions brought against ASM Metal and Oriental, the breaches and associated pecuniary penalties flowed from exposure to risk, rather than the occasioning of actual injury or harm through the materialisation of that risk.
• Thirdly, routine and unannounced inspections conducted by the HSE – which can occur at any time – can lead to enforcement action being taken against duty holders and even referral for prosecution where the HSE considers those breaches to be significant.
• Fourthly, it is insufficient for duty holders to merely identify potential risks. What matters is the implementation of effective control measures to address those risks. Although ASM Metal had identified the risk of pedestrian-vehicle collision occurring at its premises, it was the failure to implement effective control measures to address this risk which led to the prosecution, and ultimately the fine imposed on the company.
• Finally, ASM Metal and Oriental had both exhibited historical non-compliance with their WH&S obligations. The failure to adequately remedy previous non-compliance was a factor taken into account by the HSE in choosing to prosecute both companies.