Cameron House Hotel case sets tougher sentences

Scottish businesses which breach fire safety laws are more likely to face tougher sentencing after a case in which the owners of Cameron House Hotel were fined £500,000 and a porter narrowly escaped a jail term.

Sheriff William Gallacher confirmed that in dealing with the tragic circumstances of a fire at the luxury hotel in 2017 in which two guests died, that he had followed guidelines set out by the Sentencing Council in England and Wales.

The Scottish courts have previously confirmed the significance of the Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines in sentencing health and safety matters, but this is the first time they have been used for fire safety failings in Scotland. As with health and safety offences, while their use provides enhanced transparency and consistency, they are also likely to lead to increasingly hefty fines for those found to be in breach.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Sheriff Gallacher fined the hotel owners £500,000 for fire safety violations, and sentenced hotel porter Christopher O’Malley to the statutory maximum 300 hour community payback order. The owners admitted to breaching fire safety rules after O’Malley put a plastic bag of hot ash in a concierge cupboard, causing a fire which led to the deaths of two hotel guests.

The court set the fine after assessing the hotel’s turnover as “medium”, taking into account its revenues both before and after the fire, and putting that into the context of the assessed level of culpability and harm.

In recent years, the Scottish courts have stressed the importance of bringing home the consequences of non-compliance to shareholders and business owners. The sentence in this case took into account the fact that the company had appropriate fire insurance, occupier liability insurance and also profit insurance.

The sheriff said the insurance cover meant the company was unlikely to have sustained the significant loss in their income which might otherwise have resulted from the fire, and the penalty should be raised as a result.

In assessing the penalty to be handed to O’Malley, the sheriff said he would have considered a custodial sentence if O’Malley had been given specific training and instructions on how to dispose of ash and other materials produced by an open fire, and had disregarded these. However, after considering the English sentencing guidelines, the court said it was appropriate to avoid a custodial sentence as O’Malley had not had specific instructions and had not contemplated that his actions would have led to the fire.

There is increasingly a considerable will to hold corporates to account for organisational failure. This cannot be lost sight of in the boardroom – fire safety must be a key priority. Fire risk assessments must be rigorously maintained, and suitable mitigation measures adopted and kept under review. Staff must be properly and regularly trained, and a culture of compliance must permeate the business.

For individual offenders too, the case sends a strong message with the court making it clear that a custodial sentence was actively considered. Employees must also do their part to protect their co-workers and the public.

Katherine Metcalfe, Legal Director and health and safety specialist at Pinsent Masons

Related topics:



Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.