Contrast in fines.

Peter B said:

Last week United Biscuits were fined 150,000 squid after one of their
drivers fell from his cab and suffered fatal head injuries (I won't even go
into h*lmet territory) due to poor vehicle maintenance practices.
Nothing particularly wrong about that but it seems in stark relief to the
fines meted out when lorry drivers, or any other drivers, poor practice
results in the death of another person.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132407&command=
displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=12285170&moduleName=InternalSearc
h&keyword=united%20biscuits&formname=sidebarsearch

I appreciate there is a difference between fining a large corporation and an
individual but in my naivety I think it sends out the wrong message, i.e. if
the heavy fine to an employer is to reflect how seriously the courts view
their actions what does it say about the paltrey fines handed out to road
killers?
And personally I don't think the ability to pay is a good argument, the
corporation will very likely be covered by insurance in one instance and if
not they will either be able to absorb the cost or go out of business, and
unless they are generally a bad employer the latter scenario may affect the
workers and local community most.

Very big companies see no point in insurance; they do better to bear the
risk themselves [1]. Shell was fined £900,000 this week over the death
of two North Sea employees (civil compensation is another matter).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4490187.stm
In the last quarter Shell announced earnings in excess of
$5,548,000,000. So, at £1 = $1.909 the fine represents about 40 minutes
of earnings, assuming the earnings are continuous, 24 hours a day. For
someone paid a salary of £20k on a 40 hour week the equivalent fine
would be £6.41, which is down the low end of the scale even for killing
cyclists.

It's useless to compare this sort of thing to the fines issued to
typical individual motorists. It is an entirely different world.

[1] Although for the really big risks, such as a major industrial
disaster, such companies are protected by being made up of many
wholly-owned subsidiaries. If the worst happens, a subsidiary might
carry the responsibility and might go bust, but the company overall is
relatively unhurt.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter B said:

I appreciate there is a difference between fining a large corporation

and an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

individual but in my naivety I think it sends out the wrong message,

i.e. if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the heavy fine to an employer is to reflect how seriously the courts

view

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their actions what does it say about the paltrey fines handed out to

road

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

killers?

Quoted message said:

It's useless to compare this sort of thing to the fines issued to
typical individual motorists. It is an entirely different world.

It certainly is!
We're fed the line that driving fines are based on the transgression, not
the outcome of said transgression nor the culprits ability to pay. Hence in
theory it shouldn't matter whether careless driving results in a broken
bollard or loss of life nor whether committed by pauper or millionaire, the
fine reflects the crime. And because of the difficulty of pursuing more
serious charges the lesser charges seem to prevail.
However, I can't believe that if the victim in my original post had fell out
of his cab and broken his arm the fine would have been so severe even though
the cause would have been the same.

All I know is that in one case the headline reads "person dead, organisation
at fault fined 150,000 pounds" in t'other it reads "person dead, someone at
fault fined 300 pounds".
A different costing for the lost life, ostensibly.

I suppose one major difference is that the corporations management can
spread or pass on the guilt whilst, hopefully, the individual cannot.

Pete

john redman said:

Quoted message said:

We're fed the line that driving fines are based on the transgression, not
the outcome of said transgression nor the culprits ability to pay. Hence
in
theory it shouldn't matter whether careless driving results in a broken
bollard or loss of life nor whether committed by pauper or millionaire,
the
fine reflects the crime.

Whilst the starting point for considering the level of a fine is the
seriousness of the crime, ability to pay is then taken into account. A
company would have to make a submission to the court on its profits and the
effects of a substantial fine on its employees. An individual would have to
submit a means test form. Both would be questioned by the bench on their
submissions.

I can't think of a better or fairer system. There is no logic in fining
someone who hasn't the means to pay.

Just a minor point; it's usual that the prosecution will inform the
court of the financial circumstances of a company taken to court,
although the company can then try to argue that the prosecution has made
the company's position look better than it really is. The figures are
usually taken from the company's annual accounts, so it might be unwise
of the company to argue too hard if that suggests its accounts are
misleading.

It can be quite strange to see the same court told one moment that the
defendant for a public order offence is a homeless person with no
assets, then a few minutes later in a case for breach of health & safety
law that the defendant is a global company with assets in the UK alone
that perhaps exceed £20 billion. I suppose that can be seen as a form of
equality before the law; on the other hand, as Anotole France said, "The
law, in its exalted impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike from
sleeping under bridges and stealing crusts of bread".

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap