SENTENCING STATEMENTS

On sentencing Sheriff Watson made the following remarks in court

" Bell Group Limited, whom I will refer to as “the company”, pled guilty by way of a section 76 indictment to a charge that on 16 May 2023 at 23 Redford Gardens, Edinburgh, being an employer, they failed to ensure that work at height was properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner that was so far as reasonably practicable safe, in that they failed to ensure that a safe system of work was employed and carried out by employees with the necessary training and skill to do so, and that the system of work was appropriately supervised, contrary to regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

On 16 May 2023 their employee Scott Harvey was working at a dwellinghouse at 23 Redford Gardens. He had accessed the roof by means of an extension ladder and roof ladder, to replace a missing roof tile. The roof ladder became detached from the apex of the roof. He fell five metres or thereby, to his severe injury.

There is no sentence I can pass that will reflect the harm caused to Mr Harvey. I offer him my sympathy. The purpose of this case is not to put a value on his injuries. That is not what the court is doing.  Instead the court is holding the company to account for its failings and hopefully ensuring that lessons have been learnt which may avoid anything of this nature happening again. In circumstances where injury has resulted from a breach of health and safety requirements by a company employer, the only penalty which the court can impose is a monetary fine.

Mr Harvey was then aged 51. He had joined the company in January 2023 as a general handyman. He had not undertaken any work at height training since joining the company. The company was undertaking work to vacant military quarters in advance of them being occupied. A hip tile was missing from one ridge on the roof. The company employees on site did not include a roofer. Mr Harvey inspected the roof from ground level. He assessed that scaffolding would be required and recorded that on the job sheet. Scaffolding was not requisitioned for the site.

On this day Mr Harvey had no specific jobs to do but was aware the tile required to be replaced. He and a colleague accessed an extension ladder and a roof ladder that were available to any employee who required them. They wedged the extension ladder under the gutter. Neither employee was aware that the safer method was for it to extend one metre beyond the gutter. Mr Harvey ascended the ladder. The other employee passed him the roof ladder. He pushed it onto the roof to hook it over the apex. As he did so, he and the ladder fell to the ground.

Mr Harvey sustained extensive right-sided thoracic injuries with fractures to the first to ninth ribs, pulmonary lacerations and a small pneumothorax. He suffered a fractured bone in his spine and fractures of the clavicle and scapula. He received treatment in the intensive care unit, the high dependency unit and the major trauma ward of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. He has received outpatient treatment from physiotherapy, speech and language therapy for compromised ability to swallow, and psychiatric assistance. His lifestyle was significantly impacted by his injuries.

I was advised that as there was no roofer on site, the work on the roof had been allocated to Mr Harvey. His supervisors had been recently appointed and worked remotely. They were unaware that replacement of the roof tile required a permit to work at height. Mr Smith KC for the company submitted that such work ought to have been undertaken only under a permit to work, by operatives with the necessary training, and in accordance with the available risk assessments and method statements. The failure to do so had resulted in disciplinary action against senior employees.

The company accepts that they failed to ensure that there was a safe system of work properly implemented in accordance with regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations. On behalf of the company Mr Smith asks me to take account of a number of factors.

First, the company has no previous convictions

Secondly, the company has a highly developed approach to health and safety. I have had regard to the company strategy and the policies provided. The company has been awarded a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gold award in 2024 and 2025.

Thirdly, this should be treated as an isolated occurrence. I accept that this case relates to this one task. I note that Mr Harvey had joined the company by way of a TUPE transfer. The company had not completed the training he ought to have received, including work at height training.

Finally, Mr Smith submits that the company responded appropriately and responsibly to the accident. They suspended work pending an internal investigation. They issued a stand-down order to all their sites. They provided refresher training to all operatives. They revised their work at height permit system. They engaged fully with the Police Scotland and HSE investigations. They submitted a full, detailed and transparent report to the HSE.

In determining the sentence in this case, I have had regard to the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing Guidelines, including that sentences must be fair and proportionate and should be no more severe than is necessary to achieve the appropriate purposes of sentencing in each case. I have had regard to the Sentencing Process sentencing guideline. I have also had regard to the English Sentencing Guidelines in respect of health and safety offences (Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Offences Definitive Guideline) as a cross-check. I have considered various Scottish authorities, including Scottish Sea Farms Ltd v HMA 2012 SLT 299 and Scottish Power Generation Ltd V HMA  2017 JC 85.

The company is a private limited company. It is a family-owned property services company.  It employs 1,798 people, including 215 apprentices. I have been provided with accounts for the financial years ending March 2023 to 2025 and a projection for the 2026 financial year. Turnover has increased from £202m to £227m over that period. Profit has varied widely, from £4.48m in 2024 to a projection of £0.5m for 2026.

In accordance with the Sentencing Process sentencing guideline, I first assess the seriousness of the offence, both the culpability and the harm. Culpability requires consideration of the blameworthiness of the company, including:

• Whether they intended to cause harm. I am content that they did not;
• Whether they were reckless as to whether harm was caused. Whether or not reckless is the apt word, they did fail to ensure that a safe system of work was in place, and the purpose of such a system is of course to avoid injury;
• Whether there was any planning or premeditation. There was not;
• Whether they knew or should have known or the risks that might arise from their actions, even if unintended. That again underscores the purpose of having a safe system of work.

Turning to harm, the outcome was severe injury to Mr Harvey, with significant consequences for him. I have not been given detail of his current functioning but I do note that this has had a significant impact on him and it is not hard to understand why.

Taking all of this together, I consider seriousness to be of a medium level. I then use the English guidelines as a cross-check. Mr Smith submits that the culpability level thereunder is medium. That includes the descriptor, “systems were in place but these were not sufficiently adhered to or implemented”. I consider that is apposite here. Turning to harm, I accept the submission that this is harm category 2, based on it having the highest level of seriousness of harm risked and a medium likelihood of that harm occurring. Under these guidelines the court should then consider two further factors: whether the offence exposed a number of workers or members of the public to the risk of harm, and whether the offence was a significant cause of actual harm. The second factor does apply. A significant cause is one which more than minimally contributed to the outcome. The guidelines state that if one or both of these factors applies, the court must consider moving up a harm category or substantially moving up within the category range.

Step two in the Scottish sentencing process is to select the sentencing range. There is limited Scottish authority directly in point. Mr Smith directed me to the English guideline and submitted that this fell within category 2 of a large organisation, with a starting point of £600,000. I agree that this would fall into that bracket but for the fact the offence was a significant cause of actual harm. That would push this either higher in the range of £300,000 to £1,500,000 or else into harm category 1, with a range of £800,000 to £3,250,000 and a starting point of £1,300,000. I consider that an appropriate starting point would be £800,000, being well below the upper end of the harm category 2 range and at the bottom of harm category 1.

Step three is to consider any aggravating or mitigating factors. I accept the submission that none of the aggravating factors set out in Scottish Sea Farms was present. Death did not occur. This was not a breach made with a view to profit. This was an isolated occurrence.

Turning to mitigation, again with reference to Scottish Sea Farms, there was a prompt admission of responsibility and the company cooperated fully with the investigation by the HSE. The Crown narrative states that the company:

• Suspended all work by way of a stand down notice to ensure that the planning of work at height was being done correctly;
• Issued a safety bulletin on training, safe systems of work and selection of equipment for working at height;
• Delivered a safety presentation to their branch network;
• Established that their risk assessments had not been implemented at the time;
• Revised its work at height permit system; and
• Discontinued the use of roof ladders.

In addition to that Mr Smith submits that the company is entirely contrite and accepts its responsibility. I also take into account their safety record and the approach to health and safety demonstrated in the documents placed before the court.

Taking all of those mitigating factors into account, I consider that an appropriate starting point is £500,000. At this stage I also require to consider the company’s financial performance so that, in the words of their lordships in Scottish Power Generation, in turn quoting the English guideline, any fine is “sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with health and safety legislation”. The company’s turnover is four times higher than the starting point for a large organisation. I do not consider that means they should be treated as a very large organisation, but it would point towards increasing the starting point. Against that, their level of profit is low, particularly so in the last financial year. Mr Smith advised me that he was making no submission as to the impact of a financial penalty, save that it would impact on cashflow. It is arguable these factors balance out, but looking at the matter more broadly and considering the question of proportionality I consider this ought to reduce the starting point to £450,000.

Finally, I take into account the company’s plea of guilty to a section 76 indictment.  I am invited to apply the full discount. I note what is said in Scottish Power Generation about the circumstances in which a full one-third discount would involve too substantial a sum of money relative to the total. Nonetheless, taking everything into account I will reduce the financial penalty to £300,000 on account of the plea of guilty.

In respect of this indictment I will therefore impose a fine of £300,000. In addition there will be a victim surcharge. That is the sum which the company will pay as the fine in this case. It is a figure which, I am sure, will remind the company’s directors and shareholders of the gravity of this offence. But I must stress that this is not, and could never be, a figure which in some way represents the impact on Mr Harvey, who has my every sympathy."

 

 

 21 July 2026