Should higher penalties be applied to larger companies?
  • Peter Bateman
    273
    In the current edition of Safeguard magazine Grant Nicholson and Olivia Welsh assess the 2016 sentencing guidelines adopted in the UK.

    They reckon courts should consider a defendant's turnover so that the largest companies could have their penalties increased.

    Do you agree?

    You can respond in public here on the Forum, or privately here via a Survey Monkey form.

    An edited selection of responses will be published in the Sept/Oct edition, but with no names attached. One randomly selected person will receive a prize!
    Peter Bateman Options
  • Peter Bateman
    273
    Whether size of fine promotes change in the defendant company is interesting, but the question at hand isn't about that.

    The question is about the courts setting a starting point for a fine, and then looking at both mitigating and aggravating factors to reduce or increase the amount.

    One aggravating factor which NZ courts don't seem to consider - but UK courts now do - is that a large company with ample funds should have the resourcing to do H&S well, and therefore should face an increased penalty (given the company can hardly argue lack of funds to pay).

    The UK requires courts do consider this, in quite a structured way. Should NZ courts do something similar, even if not so structured?
    Peter Bateman Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to Safeguard Online!

Where people in New Zealand with health & safety duties find the information, innovation and inspiration they need.

Sign In

Categories