Posted By Stuart James Gornall
The recent conviction of Charles Helmrich for Health and Safety offfences is a disgrace. This sends out the wrong message i.e. Directors and companies get off scot free and the Safety Practitioner carries the can, the Judge even admits the man is a scapegoat. Is this in the public interest?
I think not.

IOSH and the profession should support this man and surely an appeal has got to be lodged

Posted By Robert M Edwards
Without seeing the full transcript of the judgment I cannot comment on the fairness or otherwise or this latest decision.

I can say this however, an appeal cannot be lodged simply because the decision is disliked. The only grounds are a mistake of fact or of law during the first trial that would alter the decision if these factors had been known about. Very few cases fit the requirements for appeal, which is not a retrial, just a review on the grounds on which the decision was made. Even those few cases that do get to appeal have the barriers of costs to consider as well as the chances of success.

The issue of pursuing those in charge such as directors and owners of the business needs legislation amendments as I have said before.

This whole area needs more action in the lobbying to change the way the present law is applied in my opinion.

Posted By Paul Craythorne
All,

There is quite a lengthy article about this on page 3 of the British Safety Council's 'Safety Management' magazine (May edition)

Regards,

Paul Craythorne

Posted By Jim Walker
Whilst trying to steer clear of reference to this specific case, as I’m a bit hazy on the detail. I think we all need to ask ourselves if we are sufficiently covered via the company Employee Liability Insurance and is there a need for personal indemnity insurance? Maybe this could be an IOSH membership service opportunity.

If the employer goes bust (as I believe happened in this case) or the insurer won’t provide retrospective cover, what happens?

The fine this chap received is manageable by most, but what if it leads to a civil case?

I’m aware one does not necessarily follow from the other, but the victim's family at least now have an identifiable target.

Posted By David Edward Partington
My understanding of this case is that he was unable to prove that he had brought the issue of PAT testing to his empolyers attention.

He may or may not have done.

Had he been able to prove that he had, then he would have had a good defence.

I make a point of copying all emails that I deem to be importent. AS otherwise all else is hearsay.

Regards

David Partington.