The Crime and Policing Act 2026: What Health & Safety Professionals Need to Know
For many health and safety professionals, the words Crime and Policing Act 2026 may not immediately suggest workplace safety. Much of the discussion around the Act has focused on policing reforms and measures relating to crime prevention, but one of its most significant developments for businesses is the reform of corporate criminal liability.
The Act introduces a major change in how organisations can be held accountable for criminal offences committed by senior managers. For health and safety practitioners, this could have a significant impact on how workplace incidents are investigated, how evidence is gathered, and how senior leadership decisions are scrutinised.
From 29 June 2026, organisations may face prosecution where a senior manager commits a criminal offence while acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority. Importantly, this applies across all criminal offences, including health and safety offences.
For industries where safety risks are higher, such as construction, manufacturing, transport, logistics, utilities and chemical processing, this change could increase the likelihood of successful prosecutions where senior management decisions contribute to unsafe working conditions.
Why has the law changed?
Historically, prosecuting large organisations for criminal offences has often been challenging.
Under previous rules, prosecutors generally needed to identify the “directing mind and will” of an organisation, meaning a person who represented the company’s decision-making authority at the highest level. While this approach could work for smaller businesses, it became increasingly difficult when dealing with larger organisations where responsibility was spread across multiple departments, sites and management levels.
In practice, this meant that proving a company’s criminal responsibility could be difficult, even where serious failings had occurred.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces a broader approach by focusing on senior manager attribution. Rather than relying solely on the actions of those at the very top of an organisation, the Act looks at whether a person with significant management responsibility committed an offence while carrying out their role.
This means accountability can extend further into an organisation’s leadership structure.
Who could be considered a senior manager?
A key point for businesses is that “senior manager” is not defined purely by job title.
The focus is on the level of responsibility, influence and decision-making authority an individual has within the organisation.
This could include:
- Managing Directors
- Operations Directors
- Regional Directors
- Heads of business units
- Plant Managers with significant operational control
- Senior Health & Safety leaders with strategic responsibilities
- Senior Project Managers responsible for major operations
The exact boundaries will ultimately be tested through future cases, but the intention of the legislation is clear: individuals who have a meaningful influence over how an organisation operates may fall within scope.
What does this mean for health and safety offences?
The most significant impact is that it may become easier for prosecutors to connect the actions of senior decision-makers directly to the organisation.
Examples could include situations where a senior manager:
- Approves unsafe working practices to meet deadlines or production targets.
- Chooses not to address known safety risks due to cost pressures.
- Fails to act following serious audit findings or inspection concerns.
- Ignores repeated reports of unsafe conditions.
- Removes safety controls or resources to improve efficiency.
Where these actions amount to a criminal breach of health and safety legislation, the organisation itself may now face prosecution based on the conduct of that senior manager.
The Act does not create new health and safety offences and does not replace existing legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, or the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Instead, it strengthens the route by which responsibility can be attributed to organisations.
A greater focus on leadership and decision-making
One of the biggest practical changes for health and safety professionals is likely to be increased scrutiny of senior leadership involvement.
Following a serious incident, investigators are likely to look beyond what happened at the point of failure and examine the decisions, priorities and systems that contributed to the situation.
Evidence that may become increasingly important includes:
- Board meeting minutes.
- Executive safety reviews.
- Risk acceptance decisions.
- Internal audit reports.
- Safety performance data.
- Resource allocation decisions.
- Corrective action tracking.
- Escalation processes.
The question investigators may ask is not only “what went wrong?” but also:
“Who knew about the risk, when did they know, and what action did they take?”
This places greater emphasis on organisations being able to demonstrate effective governance and active safety leadership.
The importance of strong assurance systems
The changes reinforce the need for businesses to have robust health and safety assurance arrangements.
Senior leaders should be able to demonstrate that they:
- Receive accurate information about workplace risks.
- Understand significant safety concerns.
- Challenge poor performance.
- Provide appropriate resources.
- Monitor whether corrective actions are completed.
Health and safety professionals play a crucial role in ensuring information reaches the right people and that there is a clear audit trail showing how risks are identified, controlled and reviewed.
A risk that is known but not escalated, recorded or addressed creates a very different picture from a risk that has been actively managed through a clear governance process.
Reviewing competence and accountability
The Act also highlights the importance of ensuring that senior managers understand their health and safety responsibilities.
Businesses should consider reviewing:
- Whether senior managers have appropriate health and safety knowledge.
- Whether responsibilities and delegations are clearly defined.
- Whether directors and executives receive suitable training.
- Whether safety-critical decisions are properly recorded.
- Whether leadership teams actively review health and safety performance.
Demonstrating competent leadership and informed decision-making could become increasingly important when organisations need to defend their actions.
What should health and safety professionals do now?
The introduction of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 provides an opportunity for organisations to review their current arrangements and strengthen their approach.
Key actions include:
- Review governance structures and reporting lines.
- Identify individuals who may fall within the definition of a senior manager.
- Ensure significant health and safety risks are escalated appropriately.
- Improve documentation of decisions affecting workplace safety.
- Review director and senior manager competence.
- Audit assurance processes and corrective action systems.
- Ensure board-level health and safety oversight is recorded and demonstrable.
Final thoughts
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 represents a significant development in corporate accountability. While it does not introduce new health and safety offences, it changes the way responsibility can be attributed when senior management decisions contribute to criminal failings.
For health and safety professionals, the message is clear: effective safety management is not just about having policies, procedures and risk assessments in place. Organisations must be able to demonstrate that leaders understand risks, make informed decisions and actively monitor safety performance.
Businesses that can evidence strong governance, competent leadership and effective assurance processes will be better positioned to manage the increased scrutiny created by these changes.
Health and safety starts at every level of an organisation, but accountability increasingly starts at the top.