New sentencing guidelines reveal how tough the courts are likely to be in corporate manslaughter cases, a legal expert has warned.

And if cost-cutting turns out to be a factor then companies could have the book thrown at them, cautions Charles Arrand, a partner in the Regulatory and Government Affairs group of DLA Piper in Birmingham.

"The guidelines make it clearer than ever that the offence of corporate manslaughter will be treated even more seriously by the courts than other health and safety offences," he noted.

In the first such prosecution, the trial of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings and its managing director Peter Eaton has been adjourned until October at Bristol Crown Court due to Eaton's ill health.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has been charged with alleged offences under the Corporate Manslaughter Act and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 as well as alleged breaches of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act following the death of junior geologist Alexander Wright.

In addition, Peter Eaton has also been charged with alleged common law manslaughter and with breaching section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act regarding alleged neglect on his part as a director of Cotswold Geotechnical.

Mr Wright, aged 27, died last September when the sides of an excavated pit collapsed around him as he collected soil samples in Stroud.

There is huge interest in the outcome of the case, not least in relation to how the new Act might be interpreted in relation to some of its key provisions , but additionally in relation to how the courts might apply the new tougher legislation in the event of a conviction and to what extent the guidelines will affect sentencing.

The sentencing guidelines recommend significant fines of a punitive nature to properly reflect the disquiet society should inevitably feel in the circumstances of unnecessary injuries and deaths .In the case of corporate manslaughter, these fines are likely to run into millions of pounds for the large corporate in a case of serious breach and it is recommended that they "should seldom be below £500,000". For other health and safety offences that cause death, fines would range from £100,000 up to hundreds of thousands of pounds, possibly over a million pounds, depending on a number of factors.

The guidelines state: "In deciding the level of fine, account must be taken of the financial circumstances of the offending organisation. The effect on the employment of the innocent may be relevant, as may the effect on provision of services to the public.

"Factors that would aggravate the offence and raise the fine above the minimum level include the number of deaths and serious injury caused, failure to heed warnings or respond to near misses of a similar nature, cost-cutting, and deliberate failure to obtain or comply with relevant licences."

Publicity Orders - compelling companies and organisations to publish statements about their conviction for corporate manslaughter, details of the offence and the fine - are deemed part of the penalty and "should be imposed in virtually all cases".

Mr Arrand stated: "Corporate manslaughter will always involve a 'gross breach' of the duty of care, but there will be some cases where the breach is particularly serious.  For example, there would be a difference between failing to train certain individuals to the correct standard and failing to train anyone at all demonstrating a mindset of quite simply not caring one way or another whether employees were able to do their jobs safely.

"Often, a company may have very strong procedures in place, but these are not brought to the attention of the workforce or are routinely disregarded.  Health and safety reviews are an excellent way for organisations to check that policies are still current and fit for purpose, and to ensure that such policies are actually being implemented on the ground.

"For a corporate manslaughter conviction, the higher the culpability goes, the more serious the offence will be. It is, therefore, of particular importance that the board is aware of its health and safety responsibilities and leads by example.

"Cost-cutting at the expense of safety has always been considered a strongly aggravating factor in relation to health and safety offences. It is very important not only that companies do not make changes that might compromise health and safety for the sake of profit, but also that they avoid creating the perception that they have done so. Care should be taken to consider the health and safety impacts of other decisions, like the reorganisation of shift patterns or any reduction of workforce."

Mitigating factors include high level of co-operation, a good health and safety record, and a responsible attitude.