Southwark tower block fire fine reflected authority's 'knowing risk', expert says

Southwark Council's £570,000 fine, which included £300,000 worth of court costs, could have been even higher if fire safety cases were covered by the health and safety sentencing guideline, which came into force in February last year, according to health and safety law expert Kevin Bridges of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com.

The council pled guilty to four offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire) Safety Order at Southwark Crown Court late last week. London Fire Brigade had prosecuted the council following a 2009 fire at Lakanal House, Camberwell in which six people, including three children, died.

Bridges said that the case was the most high profile fire safety case to be sentenced since 2010, when retailer New Look unsuccessfully appealed a fine of £400,000 resulting from fire safety deficiencies which led to a fire at its Oxford Street store in the Court of Appeal.

"Judge Pegden specifically compared Lakanal House to the New Look case, including a lengthy quote from Lord Justice Pitchford from the Court of Appeal judgment which made it clear that the sentencing judge is entitled to recognise that the nature of risk in fire safety cases is the risk of death or serious injury. It can be indiscriminate, and in the case of an organisation in the centre of a large city there will be a large number of visitors and employees," he said. "The fine should reflect the magnitude of the risk which has been knowingly taken with public safety, regardless of whether this is causative of death or injury."

"Judge Pegden specifically referred to the £400,000 fine in the New Look case, and compared New Look as an organisation with 612 premises, 20,000 staff and a £1 billion turnover to Southwark Council, which has a lower available budget of £283 million and is a public body providing services to those in the Southwark borough. Having made this comparison, and then having considered the mitigating factors, the judge handed down a fine of £270,000, specifying that this was reduced from £400,000 because of the early guilty plea and the other mitigating features. Interestingly, very large costs of £300,000 had been agreed between the parties," he said.

"The judge also made it clear at the beginning of the judgment that the Health and Safety Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to fire safety cases and this judgment was very clearly focused on applying the principles of earlier case law to reach a penalty. Had this been a health and safety case sentenced under the guidelines the penalty could have been in the millions, even for a public body such as the council," he said.

The case was not focused on the fire itself, but rather the risks posed to the building's residents before the date of the fire as a result of a number of structural and fire safety deficiencies in the block. These included the council's failure to make a fire assessment; allowing breaches of fire resistant structures between the staircases leading to each apartment and the common internal doors; no proper compartmentation in the false ceiling structure of internal corridors; and a lack of fitted strips and smoke seals on flat front doors and other fire doors.

London Fire Brigade's assistant commissioner for fire safety, Dan Daly, said that it had prosecuted the council "so we can reduce the likelihood of such a devastating fire ever happening again".

"All landlords, including large housing providers such as councils and housing associations, have a clear responsibility under the law to ensure that their premises meet all fire safety requirements and are effectively maintained to provide protection in the event of a fire and keep their residents safe," he said.

"We want them to take the opportunity provided by this court case to remind themselves of exactly what their fire safety responsibilities are under the law, and to ensure that everyone in their premises is safe from the risk of fire," he said.