Sentencing Updates for April 2026

The defendant water company polluted a country park stream three times in less than a year. 

The first pollution incident happened when a rising main sewer pipe from a sewage pumping station burst. This caused untreated sewage to spill from a manhole into the stream that runs through the country park. Various fish in the country park pond were killed – including tench, pike and roach – along with dead river insects. The impact on water quality stretched for over 600 metres. The failure of the rising main was due to severe corrosion. 

The second pollution incident was caused by a blockage in the plastic foul sewer pipe leading to a pressure build up in a joint of the pipe. This foul sewer pipe was suspended on chains inside a surface water sewer pipe, which would normally only contain rainwater and runs into a stream. The blockage – mainly wet wipes – eventually caused a leak of sewage into the surface water pipe, which entered the stream. While there was no evidence of fish being affected, the impact on water quality was evident over 700 metres. 

The third pollution incident was caused by a failure of a joint coupling in the same plastic foul sewer pipe to the previous incident, but in a different location. Again, this led to sewage spilling into the surface water pipe and entering the stream. There was no evidence of fish affected, but water quality was impacted for over 600 metres. 

The defendant would not attend an interview for any of the three incidents. 

Full charges x 3 - the defendant caused a water discharge activity, namely the discharge of sewage into inland freshwaters otherwise than in accordance with or to the extent authorised by an environmental permit. Contrary to regulation 12(1)(b) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

The defendant discovered oil leaking from a pipe carrying a mix of oil and water at a harbour. A breach of the pipe was caused as part of the pipe corroded much faster than checks indicated or was expected. A significant amount of oil leaked into the harbour area, which includes sensitive habitats and species such as seagrass and saltmarsh. 

The company paid £620,000 direct to impacted parties, including commercial seafood beds who were forced to close during the initial pollution assessment. The Environment Agency accepted the defendant’s offer due to the significant costs it had already spent making right the environmental damage caused, and the measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence of the incident.

£48,000

The defendant sausage casing manufacturer discharged untreated industrial effluent from its factory into a local burn, significantly harming the environment. The defendant’s manufacturing process producing significant volumes of trade effluent from animal hide washing undertaken inside a number of large drums, which use mechanical action and chemicals to remove material from the animal skins. Under normal conditions, the factory’s trade effluent should be discharged to the public sewer under a trade effluent direction from Scottish Water, which includes strict limits on volume and chemical content. However, a blockage in the defendant’s foul sewer line caused a back-up of trade effluent. The factory operated a dual manhole drainage system, comprising a foul pipe and surface water pipe running alongside each other. This back-up within the foul pipe spilled over into the surface water pipe, with untreated effluent entering the surface water network and discharging direct to the burn. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to carrying on a controlled activity liable to cause pollution of the water environment without the required authorisation from SEPA. The exact charge was: 

The defendant did carry out a controlled activity, namely an activity liable to cause pollution of the water environment in that it did discharge trade effluent containing elevated levels of Ammonia, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Chemical Oxygen Demand from the premises to the water environment otherwise than in accordance under the aforementioned Regulations. Contrary to the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 Regulation 4 and 44(1)(a) and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 Section 20(3)(a).

£40,000

The defendant recycling company contravened a condition of its environmental permit for its waste site. The offence increased the risk of fire at the site, which stores highly combustible Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). The site had previously experienced serious fires in 2014 and 2015. Inspections revealed the defendant’s failure to manage operations in line with its own Fire Prevention and Mitigation Plan.

The offence comprised: 

- The separation distance between waste stockpiles being less than the required 12 metres 

- The height of waste stockpiles exceeding the 4-metre limit 

- Failure to provide a quarantine area large enough to hold 50% of the largest waste stockpile 

The defendant continued to accept additional waste despite agreeing with NRW to stop, and failed to maintain the required quarantine area to manage fire risk. It pleaded guilty to an offence of failing to comply with a condition of its permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 concerning fire safety requirements.

£2.2 million

A labourer was crushed to death by a pallet of timber that weighed around three tonnes. He died after a colleague started a conveyor not realising the worker had climbed inside it – resulting in the fatal crush. The deceased had been tasked with removing plastic packaging from pallets of timber before they could be processed at the mill. 

The starting of the conveyor resulted in the pack of timber moving forwards and colliding with him. The operative, who could see that the pack of timber was not moving along the conveyor as it should, reversed it before changing its direction. This resulted in the pack of timber moving forwards again – colliding with the worker for a second time. The crush injuries sustained were so significant that he died at the scene. 

The defendant building trade supplier had previously identified that employees were accessing the danger zone within the conveyor and placed signage asking employees not to do so. However, CCTV analysis revealed that between 14th April and 23rd May 2024, operatives entered within the framework of the conveyor on 19 different occasions. Although the defendant had placed stickers on the conveyor in a bid to tackle the working practice, no further action was taken to prevent access until after the tragedy. The measures subsequently introduced to reduce the risk included guarding the conveyor to prevent access, changing the system of work so that the pallets were unwrapped before being placed on the conveyor, as well as more CCTV being installed to allow all angles to be seen by those operating it. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Section 2(1).

The defendant building materials manufacturer’s employee’s legs were crushed between one-tonne metal frames moving on a production line. The employee entered a fenced area to manually clean and inspect frames. The frames, which carry large blocks through the manufacturing process, move around the factory on a trackway. He entered the fenced area through an interlocked gate which, when opened, was supposed to prevent frames from moving on that section of the track. As he was working on the stationary frame, another frame moved along the trackway into the section and struck him. The man’s legs were crushed and pinned between the two frames. He was trapped as the frames continued to move along the track, pushing him towards machinery on the next section. His right leg was broken and the other severely bruised as the frames moved over axles on the track. His colleague saw the incident from a distance and ran to help, pressing the emergency stop button in time to prevent further injury.

The man spent two weeks in hospital, where a metal rod and screws were used to repair the injuries to his right leg. He was unable to return to work for over a year and underwent extensive physiotherapy.

The defendant failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, namely the moving frames on the track, or prevent the frames from moving when employees entered the danger zone. The interlocked gate which employees used to enter the frame cleaning area did not stop the power on the preceding sections of track and would therefore not prevent a frame from moving into this area when employees were working. 

It was also found the defendant failed to act following several near misses which had occurred on this section of the track in similar circumstances. A risk assessment had been carried out by the defendant several years before the incident which identified “additional control measures required to reduce risk to an acceptable level”, but these were not put in place until after this incident. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to failing to discharge its duty under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant housing association maintenance company has been fined after an employee died from inhaling toxic vapours from flooring adhesive. 

The worker was laying a vinyl bathroom floor at a domestic property. His employer purchased an adhesive containing Dichloromethane (DCM), a highly volatile solvent. Small volumes will give off large amounts of colourless, low odour vapour, even at room temperature. He used this regularly during his employment. On the day of his death, the hose to the pressurised glue canister became damaged, releasing a large amount of adhesive into the poorly ventilated bathroom. The worker lost consciousness and collapsed. Emergency services had to force entry to the bathroom to reach him. 

The defendant had failed to take appropriate precautions to ensure substances hazardous to health are not used when safer alternatives are available. It pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 

Prosecutor Jon Mack told the court: “HSE scientists calculated that the statutory 15-minute exposure limit for DCM would have been reached within 2-13 seconds, and the final concentration in the bathroom at the time of [the man’s] death would have been 84.5 times the exposure limit. He was found to have three times the fatal concentration of DCM.”

The defendant engineering company put its employees at risk of ill-health including dermatitis, asthma and other respiratory conditions. During a routine inspection HSE inspectors identified a number of concerns which were brought to the defendant’s attention, specifically on the use of metalworking fluids in CNC machines. The defendant was served formal Improvement Notices, which required it to prepare a suitable risk assessment for the activities, and to have appropriate testing and monitoring arrangements in place. However, the defendant failed to undertake a suitable assessment. Documentation still failed to identify hazards and potential health effects, did not consider measures necessary to reduce the risk of inhalation of metalworking fluid mist, and did not consider or implement suitable arrangements to maintain metalworking fluid quality. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations and to two charges of breaching section 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

A resident choked to death on food that had not been prepared in accordance with his dietary requirements at the defendant’s care home. He had a complex medical and a well-documented history of dysphagia - difficulty swallowing. The man had been assessed as requiring a Level 5 (minced and moist) diet under the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI), meaning all food should be minced into small moist pieces no greater than 15mm in length and 4mm wide. His care plan also required he be supervised at mealtimes due to his tendency to overfill his mouth and eat quickly, and he had been identified as being at high risk of choking. 

One lunchtime, beef served to him had not been prepared in accordance with his Level 5 dietary requirements. A carer supervising the dining room noticed his lips turning blue and immediately raised the alarm. Backslaps and abdominal thrusts were administered, and an ambulance was called. He was pronounced dead at hospital. 

The defendant had failed to ensure a sufficiently robust system of work for the preparation and serving of texture-modified meals. Whilst the home operated a broadly suitable system of serving either normal or modified meals, and staff had received training on dysphagia and the IDDSI framework, that system had failed on the day in question. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The defendant grounds maintenance company has been fined after an employee was killed while operating a ride-on lawnmower. The man was cutting grass around a village pond when the ride-on mower he was operating descended a steep incline and ended up in it. The mower was being used without a safety-critical roll-over protection system fitted.

The defendant had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient site-specific risk assessment for the work being undertaken. The mower’s roll-over protection system had been removed at some point prior to the work taking place. Roll-over protection systems are designed to protect operators in the event of a machine overturning and are a critical safety feature when working on uneven or sloping ground.

The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.