Big fines may be getting bigger:  What the amended sentencing guidelines for health & safety, environmental and corporate manslaughter offences mean for very large organisations

With little more than a murmur on 1 June 2025, the Sentencing Council of England & Wales quietly issued a change with major implications for large businesses: courts are now expected, not just permitted, to go beyond existing fine guidelines when sentencing Very Large Organisations (VLOs) for health & safety offences, environmental offences and corporate manslaughter.

If your organisation’s turnover “very greatly exceeds” £50 million, this change should be on your mind.

What has Changed? 

The sentencing guidelines for health and safety, food safety, environmental and corporate manslaughter offences have been revised (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Miscellaneous-amendments-to-sentencing-guidelines-for-publication-2024-25.pdf).   

In the new updated guidelines, the Sentencing Council has revised the wording at Step 2 of the sentencing process.  Previously the wording read that the Courts may move outside the guideline range for large companies. Now Courts should consider doing so where turnover “very greatly exceeds” £50m. 

This subtle shift from “may” to “should consider” is significant.  It clarifies that VLOs are no longer covered by the top end of the existing sentencing ranges; a conservative approach that many sentencing judges have historically taken.  Courts must now proactively assess whether a larger fine is necessary to deliver proportional punishment, deterrence, and public protection. 

Why This Matters 

This isn’t just legal semantics. The change has three major consequences: 

1. Higher Starting Points 

Judges are now prompted to consider larger fines from the outset — not just as an adjustment within the guideline steps at the end of the sentencing process. 

2. Greater Risk Exposure for Big Business 

Companies with ultra-high turnover (major retailers, construction giants, utilities, transport, pharma, logistics, and food multinationals, blue chips and public companies) face significantly increased liability. 

3. Harder to Predict Outcomes 

The term “very greatly exceeds” is left undefined, and will no doubt prompt future litigation.  The necessary lack of definition gives the sentencing court some discretion which introduces uncertainty, especially for corporate boards and insurers. Advising clients will now have an added layer of complication, until such time as guidance is forthcoming. 

What Does Proportionality Look Like Now? 

The updated guidance reinforces the long-established principle that fines must be proportionate to both the seriousness of the offence and the means of the offender.  For example, a £3m fine may be punitive for a £60m-turnover firm but may barely register for a group with £1.5bn in turnover and deep reserves.  Expect fines to increasingly reflect that logic. 

Aligning with Practice 

In truth, courts were already edging toward this approach in recent years, such as in R v Places for People Homes Ltd [2021] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 37, where Popplewell LJ held that the guideline contained no separate starting points and ranges for “very large organisations”, but merely provided that for such organisations it might be necessary to move outside the suggested range for large companies.  There was no bright dividing line between “large” and “very large” organisations.  The size of the organisation lay on a spectrum and the sentencing objectives clearly identified in the Guideline applied to both.  The larger the company the greater the fine might need to be in order for it to be proportionate to the organisations’ means, to constitute adequate punishment, and to bring home to management and shareholders the need for regulatory compliance.  The extent to which any increase was required would depend upon the particular circumstances of each individual case and was not something for mechanistic extrapolation. 

In R v Tata Steel Uk Ltd [2017] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 29 the court emphasised the content of the sentencing guideline then in force namely that for very large organizations, where turnover greatly exceeds the £50 million threshold, the court may need to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence.  Such an adjustment was held necessary to reflect the true size of the organization and to ensure the fine has a real economic impact, bringing home the importance of compliance with health and safety legislation to management and shareholders.  In that case, Tata Steel UK Ltd, with a turnover of approximately £4 billion, was considered a very large organization, and the court considered moving outside the suggested range to impose a proportionate fine. 

Both Places for People and Tata signalled a judicial appetite to look past guideline ceilings for VLOs. The revised guidance now reinforces that approach.  

So, what next? 

For legal, compliance, risk and cost centre leaders, the message is clear: it’s time to act decisively.  A good place to start might be to audit your financial exposure. Where does your organisation stand in relation to the upper large organisation threshold of £50m turnover?  If you’re well above it, you should now assume you’ll be treated as a VLO for sentencing purposes — and plan accordingly.  

Take a sharp pencil to your business and safety risk models and internal safety and financial controls.  Review your incident escalation pathways, corporate risk registers, and insurance coverage.  Could the business withstand  a multi-million-pound penalty?  With courts now encouraged to exceed previous fine ranges, the bar has shifted — and so should a business’s preparedness for regulatory litigation and enforcement.  

But financial readiness alone isn’t enough. The Courts will weigh an organisations corporate governance and safety culture heavily when determining sentence.  Organisations that can demonstrate genuine commitment to health & safety — from boardroom engagement to rapid post-incident remediation — stand a much better chance of mitigating reputational and legal challenges. 

Finally, prepare for heightened scrutiny.  In the event of a serious breach, regulators will take a close interest in your financial means.  The days of treating fines as a cost of doing business are over.  Financial strength may now be seen as a reason to fine more, not less. 

In short, with these guideline changes now in force, the most effective defence is proactive compliance, robust governance, and a transparent safety culture — all backed by financial readiness. 

Conclusion 

The revision of the guidelines sends a clear message: bigger companies face bigger consequences.  The shift may appear technical, but it will reframe how courts deal with health & safety failures — and how organisations manage risk.