SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Sheriff Wilson made the following remarks in court:

"It is appropriate to start by extending the court’s deepest sympathies to the deceased Kenneth Begg’s family, in particular his two daughters. I can only hope that the conclusion of this court case may provide them with some small measure of solace and closure.

It is also appropriate to acknowledge the profound and ongoing effect Mr Begg’s death has undoubtedly had on his colleagues, particularly those who were present at the time of the accident.

Rosskeen Engineering Ltd, a company, has pled guilty, on summary complaint, to a single charge libelling that –

Between 23 March 2020 and 15 April 2021, both dates inclusive, at the premises occupied by you at Auchintoul Farm, Rosskeen, Invergordon, Ross-shire, IV18 0PL, you ROSSKEEN ENGINEERING LIMITED, a company incorporated under the Companies Act with registration number SCSC281406 and whose registered office is at said Auchintoul Farm, being an employer within the meaning of the aforementioned Act did fail to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of your employees, so far as was reasonably practicable, in that you did fail to implement and maintain a safe system of work for the use of a Horizontal Boring Machine, that was, so far as was reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health and safety in that you did fail to ensure that a trip probe intended to minimise the risk of injury through entanglement in the moving parts of said machine was properly positioned by the operator and in consequence thereof on 15 April 2021, your employee Kenneth Begg, care of the Health and Safety Executive, Inverness, while using said Horizontal Boring Machine, came into contact with the rotating stock bar of said machine and his clothing and body became entangled in the moving parts of said machine whereby he was so severely injured that on 15 April 2021 he died at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen,:

CONTRARY to Section 2(1) and Section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

In deciding on the appropriate disposal, I had the benefit of helpful written and oral submissions from both the Crown and defence. I also referred myself to both the Scottish Sentencing Council’s general framework regarding the sentencing process, and the more detailed advice contained within the (England and Wales) Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline for Health and Safety offences. With regard to the latter source, I have been urged by Senior Counsel for Rosskeen not to apply these guidelines in an overly mechanistic fashion.  This is the accepted approach in Scottish Courts, and indeed Counsel have referred me to case law in support of this submission. Nonetheless I found the Sentencing Council’s approach in considering Health and Safety offences helpful.

Kenneth Begg was, at the time of his death, 50 years old, and a widower with two adult daughters. He was a time-served turner and mechanical fitter and had been employed by Rosskeen Engineering as an Engineering Technician since 2001. He was regarded as being very experienced in the use of the Horizontal Boring Machine with which this case is concerned, and indeed had a significant role in drafting the risk assessment and method statement for its use.

Amongst the safety features introduced to mitigate the risks of operating the machine was what was described as a “wand switch”, essentially an electronic trip probe which, when placed between the operator and the borer, would stop the machine if the operator came too close to the dangerous rotating parts. Crucially, this wand switch was not fixed in situ; it could be actively moved in and out of position by the machine operator.

A further safety feature was the installation of a moveable perimeter fence around the machine. On the basis of the facts as narrated by the Crown, I regarded this element as less important, as this feature appeared to be designed not to protect the operator of the machine, but to prevent others present from straying too close.

Just after 7am on 15^th April 2021, Mr Begg was using the Horizontal Boring Machine. He had not placed the wand switch between himself and the rotating part of the machine, and in leaning into the rotating spindle his boiler suit became entangled in the machine and he was spun around several times. I do not think it appropriate to narrate the details of the multiple, very severe injuries Mr Begg sustained; suffice to say that following his being transferred by air ambulance to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary he was pronounced dead at 1150am on the same day.

The Crown’s position, as agreed by the defence, was that Rosskeen Engineering’s failings lay in not having in place an adequate system of supervision to ensure that, at all times when the Horizontal Boring Machine was being operated, the wand switch was properly positioned between operator and machine. More specifically, such a system would involve frequent checks by a supervisor, the frequency of these checks to be increased if non-compliance was noted, and decreased if consistent compliance was observed.

Prior to the COVID pandemic, the supervision regime consisted of periodic checks by the company’s senior managers, supplemented by weekly checks by an external health and safety consultant.

The latter element of the supervision regime was suspended at the start of the pandemic, and upon its resumption in April 2021, some compliance concerns were raised. The external consultant noted the safety fence around the machine to be absent, and this was raised with the Directors. This same issue was again noted a week later, pointed out to Mr Begg, and once again raised with the Directors.

More pertinently, the external consultant observed Mr Begg setting up the boring machine without the wand switch positioned correctly; this only being rectified when she pointed this out to him.

In essence, it was the Crown’s position, as laid out in the narrative agreed with the defence, that when Rosskeen Engineering became aware of Mr Begg not always complying with the safety regime, more frequent checks should have been introduced to monitor his use of the Horizontal Boring Machine, but this was not done.

Senior Counsel for Rosskeen Engineering, in addressing the court in mitigation, described the company as a small engineering firm, established more than 40 years ago, providing precision machining, fabrication and welding services to clients, mostly in the offshore and energy sectors. The court was also told that the company had a reputation for working to high standards and quality, and provided well-paid employment to 20 employees, some of whom are highly experienced engineers.

More particularly, it was stressed that the company had no previous convictions, and has a responsible attitude to safety in the workplace. I had no reason to doubt these submissions.

Notwithstanding the above submissions, Senior Counsel for Rosskeen Engineering accepted that the company was in breach of the duties owed under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. However, it was pointed out that safety measures were in place, and indeed that the wand switch which formed an integral part of these measures was developed by the company, with input from Mr Begg. It was further submitted that Rosskeen are leaders in the safe operation of the Horizontal Boring Machine.

However, it was plain from the Crown Narrative that the safety regime was not properly adhered to or monitored. Senior Counsel for the company has pointed out that Mr Begg knew where the wand switch should properly have been placed. That is undoubtedly true, but does not relieve Rosskeen of their duty to ensure that their safety regime is properly implemented.

It was also submitted by Senior Counsel for Rosskeen Engineering that the company had responded appropriately and responsibly to the accident. Given that the Crown Narrative made reference to the company co-operating fully with the Health and Safety Executive in the resultant investigation, and devoting considerable time and money to developing improved safety measures for the use of the Horizontal Boring Machine, I had no difficulty accepting this submission.

In deciding on the final disposal, I settled upon an approach of using the first four steps of the Sentencing Council guidelines as a framework, and thereafter applied the appropriate reduction to the resultant figure in light of the timing of the plea.

I started by determining the offence category as being Medium, in that Rosskeen Engineering had systems in place but these were not sufficiently adhered to or implemented.

As regards the seriousness of harm, given that the offence involved the death of an employee, Level A can be the only appropriate category.

I was not persuaded by Senior Counsel for the defence’s submission that there was a low likelihood of harm. Given the terms of the Crown Narrative, in particular the obvious apparent dangers of working in close proximity to moving machinery in the absence of an appropriate safety measure, i.e. the wand switch, I concluded that there was a medium likelihood of harm.

Applying the seriousness and likelihood of harm factors, as detailed above, gave a provisional Harm Category of 2.

Thereafter, in assessing the final harm category, I did not find the offence aggravated by a number of workers or members of the public exposed to risk of harm. Whilst I did find that the offence was a significant cause of the actual harm, I did not regard this as sufficient to change the harm category. Therefore I found the final Harm Category to be 2.

Rosskeen Engineering is plainly, in terms of the guidelines, a micro organisation. Given that I settled upon a harm category of 2, this gave a starting point of £30,000, within a range of £14,000- £70,000. Given the particular circumstances of the accident as outlined in the Crown Narrative, I saw no reason to adjust this figure of £30,000 either upwards or downwards.

However, given that this matter is being prosecuted at summary level, I am constrained to start the sentencing process with a figure of £20,000, and accordingly will do so.

Thereafter, given the company’s lack of previous convictions, the evidence of steps taken to voluntarily remedy the problem and the level of co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive investigation I felt able to adjust the figure to one of £18,000. At this stage I did not taken into account the company’s acceptance of responsibility by way of a guilty plea.

In assessing whether the fine was proportionate to the overall means of the company, notwithstanding the low level of profit in recent years, I noted the consistent figure for turnover to be in the region of £1.5 million. Accordingly no adjustment fell to be made to take into the company’s financial situation. 

In addition, I found that this level of fine should not adversely affect the company in making restitution to the family of Mr Begg or improving conditions to comply with the law, and there will be no significant impact on staff, customers or other third parties.

I noted from the Crown Narrative that it is a matter of agreement that Rosskeen Engineering has invested a considerable sum of money addressing the failings revealed by this accident. However, this factor has already been taken into account in adjusting the starting figure, and accordingly no further adjustment was necessary or appropriate at this stage.

Finally, it is a matter of concession by the Crown that, notwithstanding the considerable passage of time between the accident and this matter being brought to court, none of this delay was caused by the actions of Rosskeen Engineering. Therefore I will treat the plea as being tendered at the earliest possible opportunity, and accordingly the fine will be reduced by one third, giving a final figure of £12,000."

19 November 2025