BT's successful judicial review highlights Crown Court procedural failures in regulatory fines

The High Court's Administrative Court has delivered a significant ruling in British Telecommunications PLC's judicial review challenge, reducing a £24,000 fine imposed by Carlisle Crown Court to £4,000. Mrs Justice Hill's judgement on 17 July 2025 exposes critical procedural deficiencies in the Crown Court's handling of regulatory penalties under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

Background and initial proceedings

The case originated from safety breaches during subcontractor work on broadband infrastructure in a rural area. BT faced prosecution after subcontractors failed to adhere to safety protocols, creating public safety risks. The Crown Court imposed the £24,000 fine on 28 June 2024, prompting BT's immediate challenge on grounds of inadequate judicial reasoning and disproportionate penalty.

BT's legal team, led by Andrew Walker KC and Richard Bottomley, mounted a four-pronged attack on the Crown Court's decision. Central to their argument was the court's failure to provide sufficient reasons for the fine's scale, whilst disregarding BT's extensive compliance history and the specific circumstances surrounding the violation.

Crown Court's procedural failures

Mrs Justice Hill's analysis revealed fundamental flaws in the Crown Court's approach to sentencing. The court failed to conduct proper inquiries into culpability and harm levels as required by Sentencing Council guidelines. The determination that BT's actions constituted "medium risk of serious harm" lacked adequate substantiation, undermining the penalty's foundation.

The judgement emphasised that courts must engage meaningfully with contextual factors, including defendant compliance records and mitigating circumstances. The Crown Court's superficial treatment of these elements rendered its decision procedurally unfair and legally unsound.

Legal principles and implications

The High Court's intervention reinforces established principles governing judicial review of regulatory penalties. Courts must demonstrate clear reasoning when imposing fines, particularly regarding culpability assessment and harm evaluation. The failure to follow Sentencing Council guidelines constitutes a material error warranting appellate intervention.

Mrs Justice Hill's judgement clarifies that regulatory bodies and courts cannot impose penalties without proper consideration of established legal frameworks. The decision serves as a reminder that procedural fairness extends beyond basic hearing rights to encompass adequate reasoning and proportionate sentencing.

Broader significance

This ruling carries implications beyond BT's immediate circumstances. The substantial reduction from £24,000 to £4,000 demonstrates the courts' willingness to intervene when lower courts fail to meet procedural standards. The decision reinforces corporate defendants' rights to expect reasoned judgements that properly engage with relevant legal principles.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory enforcement and procedural fairness in corporate compliance contexts. Whilst courts must maintain robust enforcement of safety regulations, they cannot compromise established legal standards in pursuit of deterrent effect.

The judgement's emphasis on Sentencing Council guidelines compliance suggests increased judicial scrutiny of regulatory penalty decisions. Future cases involving similar procedural challenges may benefit from this precedent, particularly where courts fail to adequately assess culpability and harm factors.

This decision strengthens the framework for challenging regulatory penalties on procedural grounds, whilst maintaining the judiciary's commitment to public safety enforcement through proper legal channels. The balance between effective regulation and procedural fairness remains central to corporate compliance jurisprudence.