An Empirical Analysis of Sentencing Starting Points for HSE Offences

This paper first reviews the attitude towards starting points for the sentence of fines (i) for the period following the 1994 guideline judgment in De Spa and prior to the commencement of the Sentencing Act 2002, and (ii) for the period following the implementation of both the Sentencing Act 2002 and the HSE Amendment Act 2002 and prior to the 2008 guideline judgment in Hanham & Philp. We then empirically examine both mean starting points for fines and variability in starting points for the second of these periods, and also empirically examine the determinants of the use of starting points. Finally, we empirically examine the determinants of starting points and actual fines for those cases sentenced after Hanham & Philp through to 7 March 2012, and compare the results obtained. Following Hanham & Philp when starting points became mandatory, their amounts were strongly monotonically related to the degree of culpability and the previously found direct effect of the degree of harm seemed largely irrelevant. These results carry over to fines imposed. We also found greater consistency both for starting points and for actual fines. We found, however, greater variability in actual fines than in starting points post Hanham & Philp reflecting the role of idiosyncratic case characteristics. Also, starting points used voluntarily prior to Hanham & Philp were more variable than starting points set post Hanham & Philp.