BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> MacKie v Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_115 (09 August 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2012/2012HCJAC115.html Cite as: [2012] ScotHC HCJAC_115 |
[New search] [Help]
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
|
|
Lady PatonSheriff Principal Lockhart
|
|
Appellant: Duff; Davidson Chalmers, Edinburgh
Respondent: Rodger, AD; Crown Agent
9 August 2012
[1] We agree
with the sheriff that this offence was a serious one for the reasons set out in
his report. We note the aggravating and mitigating factors in the agreed Crown
Narrative as follows:
Aggravating factors - serious injury sustained and potential for greater injury or death. Incident readily foreseeable and easily avoided by simple measures which are well established and the subject of existing health and safety executive guidance.
Mitigating factors - no evidence that the breach occurred as a result of cost cutting measures or a blatant disregard for the safety of the appellant's employees.
[2] Notwithstanding
the agreed narrative, the sheriff states in para 21 that in his assessment
there was "demonstrated a significant disregard for the safety of the
appellant's employees".
[3] In our view
the sheriff, in carrying out the balancing exercise which he was obliged to do
in respect of the agreed aggravating and mitigating factors, gave insufficient
weight to the mitigating factors. We also take into account the downturn in
the economy which has resulted in a significant decrease in the appellant's
earnings.
[4] The maximum
fine available was £20,000. In the whole circumstances we consider that the
starting point of £18,000 was excessive. In our view the appropriate starting
point was £15,000. In relation to discount, we were referred to para 48
of Gemmell v Her Majesty's Advocate 2012 SLT 484. Standing that
guidance it seems to us that the utilitarian value of the plea (which was made
at the first opportunity) was high, and that the appropriate discount in the
circumstances should be 33%. Ultimately, therefore, we shall allow the appeal,
quash the fine of £15,000 and substitute therefor a fine of £10,000. A fines
enforcement order will also be imposed.