A transport company has won an £80,000 reduction in the fine imposed on it for a health and safety offence which led to the death of lorry driver Christopher Barnes in Fairford, Gloucestershire, more than four years ago.

Devereux Development Ltd of Billingham, Cleveland, had been fined £480,000 at Cheltenham Magistrates Court in June and was also ordered to pay costs of £12,053.06.

On December 22, at Gloucester Crown Court, the firm successfully appealed against the level of the penalty and the fine was reduced to £400,000, which must be paid at £80,000 a year for the next five years.

The company, which has an annual turnover of £13million, had pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of employees, including 69-yr-old Mr Barnes, who died following his fall from his lorry at Cotswold Doors Limited, Whelford Road Industrial Estate, Fairford, on April 23, 2018.

Mr Barnes was delivering a load of interior doors when he noticed that some of the retaining straps were tangled, the court heard. He climbed onto his curtain-sided truck to untangle them but lost his footing and fell 2.3metres to the concrete floor, suffering the fatal head injury from which he died later the same day.

During the appeal hearing at Cirencester Courthouse, barrister James Buchanan, representing Devereux Developments Ltd, said: "Nothing I say is intended to detract from the tragedy that befell Mr Barnes, his family and friends.

"At the time of the tragic accident the company had been operational for decades. It was proud not only of its commercial success but particularly of its modern history of safety performance.

"The Devereux family had a good working relationship with their employees, including Mr Barnes. In short, this family business operates with the support of its long-standing workforce, who are individually highly valued, and their safety is of paramount importance.

"The impact of Mr Barnes' death has been profound upon the business. The management had wrongly assumed that through long experience that they had safe systems of working in place.

"There had not been any other incidents, such as this, that had manifested itself throughout the life of the business. If there had been, it would have been dealt with accordingly.

"As this is shown what the company did as a result of this incident. These are thoroughly decent people at the helm who have provided employment for a significant number of individuals over many decades.

"The Devereux family are responsible business owners, who, had they appreciated that there were gaps in the safe working etiquette or risk assessment, would have addressed the problem. The way in which the company addressed theses gaps, post this accident, has been demonstrated by the responsible nature of the company's management in dealing with the deficiencies.

"The company expected that it would be fined a not insubstantial sum of money. Our approach is to suggest that the fine that was imposed was excessive.

"The company's approach to health and safety was to send out regular updates with employees' pay packets, as most workers were not digitally orientated.

"Prior to the incident the company had taken significant steps to address the health and safety risk and had applied their minds to it and had provided instruction to the work force in working at height.

"In its documentation the company states in its safe system at work that while unloading at customer's premises, drivers should not to climb up a loaded trailer in order to reach securing straps.

"The operation that Mr Barnes was dealing with was not that operation. However, the measures did not go far enough. But it does provide the workforce with guidance about the risk of working at height and the fact they must not attempt to undertake such an operation.

"Devereux Development Ltd have provided their customers with safe systems at work documentation which contains a prohibition of climbing up a loaded trailer in order to reach securing straps.

"This company did significantly more than nothing when it realised the shortfalls in its health and safety procedures after Mr Barnes' death. It has taken significant steps to address any future risk.

"Devereux Development Ltd is a profitable company with a turnover of between £14 and £15millon pounds annually. However, the profit margin is only four and a half percent of that figure.

"It is accepted that the offence should be marked with substantial fine, but we say the fine imposed by the district judge at the magistrates' court was too high. There needs to be a significant downward adjustment to recognise the financial situation of the business."

Announcing the appeal court's decision Judge Alan Large said the company had accepted that although it had health and safety documents and procedures in place they did not provide a safe system of working that covered the circumstances of Mr Barnes' fall.

"They lacked detail and provided little or no direction as to how a safe system of working could be achieved," he said.

"The company considered that its systems were sufficient to ensure the safety of employees. This was a business which had procedures in place but they were inadequate to prevent the risk of injury or death when working at height."

The judge said the company's health and safety breaches had been 'allowed to subsist for a long period of time, for many years.'

The court felt, he said, that the risk of harm to employees was 'high' and because 120 drivers were employed by the firm there was a significant risk of a death occurring.

Judge Large said the court had to take into account the turnover and profitability of the firm in assessing the correct financial penalty. The starting point for a fine on a company like Devereux with a £13million turnover would be £900,000, he said.

The fine had to be 'sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact on the firm and bring home to management and shareholders the need for safety legislation.'

The court had seen the firm's accounts for the last four years and the most recent half year and turnover had remained stable, said Judge Large. In fact it appeared to be increasing slightly in the current year and profit was four and a half percent of turnover.

"We consider the company to be a well-established, viable organisation," he went on.

Judge Large said the court had decided in all the circumstances to reduce the starting point for the fine to £600,000 and, allowing a one third discount for the company's guilty plea, had therefore set £400,000 as the correct penalty.

He said the court wanted information about the case to be circulated amongst the haulage industry to help prevent similar tragedies in future.

He asked if there was an industry body or organisation which could spread the word "to prevent any further incidents like this and also to prevent companies from being brought before the courts in this way."