A food firm has successfully appealed against its sentencing following prosecution for breaches of fire safety law.
Dub Catering pleaded guilty to offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and was fined £120,000. It claimed this punishment was manifestly excessive.
Dub Catering ran a kebab shop in a building that was about 100 years old. The ground floor was used as a commercial kitchen and first-floor rooms were used for storing cooking oil and takeaway containers. The second floor had four bedrooms used by employees for work purposes.
In February 2011, following site meetings, the local authority submitted a report mandating fire safety measures to be included in forthcoming building work – including fire doors, emergency signs and lighting on the stairs, and a water sprinkler system. Company director Mustafa Dumanli agreed to these measures, and, on 30 August 2011, a local authority site inspector approved the finished works.
Annual fire risk assessments were undertaken by Mr Dumanli, although the trial judge described them as ‘inadequate’. The sprinkler system had occasional malfunctions, causing damage to the kitchen, and destroying food in November 2011, and the company and its directors removed it.
Nine days afterwards, a routine fire safety inspection was made, and the local authority served a prohibition notice on people sleeping on the premises. The directors quickly undertook £23,000 of renovation work to make the premises safe, installing a separate entrance to sleeping accommodation, and making other fire safety improvements.
As removing the sprinkler system rendered staying overnight on the premises risky in the event of fire, the company was prosecuted. It pleaded guilty to the charges.
In sentencing, the original trial judge said there were no specific sentencing guidelines for breaches of fire safety regulations, but those for health and safety cases provided a framework for assessing culpability and harm, and that risk of harm in a fire safety case would be at the highest level.
Directors had not thought through the consequences of disconnecting the sprinkler system
Although recognising the directors’ financial situation and good behaviour, the judge described their approach as ‘woefully inadequate’. Mr Dumanli was given a six-month custodial sentence, suspended for two years.
On appeal, the judge said that the directors had not thought through the consequences of disconnecting the sprinkler system. They said it was not unreasonable to categorise the case using words taken from the ‘high culpability’ definition as one of falling ‘far short’ of acceptable standards and of ‘serious and/or systemic failure’.
Sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences refer to a range of fines that are appropriate for a company with a turnover of up to £2m. However, the company’s turnover was in the lower half of that range.
After considering the appellant’s turnover and profit for three years and its early guilty plea, the judge quashed the original penalty, substituting it with a fine of £100,000.
Image credit | Shutterstock
