Posted By Brigham
Jimmy
Agreed that PIRA were a major threat and Iraq is no picnic but I just can't agree that the circumstances are similar enough.

Posted By David McGuire
All this has done is serve to sew the seed of doubt into our police officers/ secruity services minds!!!

I wonder what would be said if in the future a similar operation to this one ended in a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a public place killing and injuring members of the public just because the armed officers never fired for fear of prosecution?

Bin ladens PR machine must be going into overdrive!!

Don't you just love what this country has become!

One last point hynd sight is a wonderfull thing it is very easy to point the finger of blame after the event, I personnally think the police do a great job under very stressfull and dangerous situations, I wonder what would happen in the future if the police hand over responsibilty for this type of operation to the Special Forces ie SAS/ SBS? after all we are suposed to fighting a war on terror!!

Posted By R Joe
I too have a lot of sympathy for the police. But Rob, Re ‘They made a mistake in their identification, simple as that.’ The 19 failures, even taking full account of hindsight and the very difficult job to be done, seem to confirm that, overall, they ‘got it badly wrong’ on this occasion, and as a result an innocent man was shot.

Does this require serious investigation – yes – appropriate accountability – yes - castigation – No. However, I also don’t agree that the use of HSW in these circumstances has been the right decision – but not because they shouldn’t be held accountable, but because, based on the particular facts, it’s applying a piece of legislation in a way that wasn’t originally intended, and in a way that most members of the public seem to find inappropriate.

Re Corporate Manslaughter. I’m interested to know from a legal perspective, based on the facts that we have, if this could (not automatically should) have been used had it been available. The final decision as to whether it would be an appropriate response would rest with the CPS, and as I understand it, whether the prosecution was ‘in the public interest’ would figure large in their considerations.

Bob – Re‘A CM conviction must also surely contain a section 2 or 3 breach as well’. The evidence for both charges may well be the same (as the CM test is linked directly to compliance with h&S legislation this is very likely), but isn’t the issue what is the most appropriate remedy and in the case of CM the gross failure by senior managers that distinguishes it?

RJ

Posted By Robert K Lewis
RJ

In the case of CM I would go for 2 convictions both with unlimited fines and let the judge decide the levels for each. If I am grossly negligent in running my company why should I simply face one charge? We do not shrink from multiple charges in other trials after all.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Sad fact about IOSH press release today is that it re-iterates the need for remediation oders and links these to the new Corproate Killing legislation. In fact this power is present in section 42 and it rather disturbing that this is the second time a presidential press release has made the same error, with an implied suggestion that remedial orders are new.

Bopb

Posted By Lizzy
Thanks for this interesting thread. As a qualified nurse with a keen interest in health and safety, I’ve been following all this quite closely. Apart from this incident potentially leaving the real terrorist at large to kill and maim people, one can only guess at the psychological effect on all the staff involved, of shooting the wrong person.

I’ve looked at the IOSH press release Bob refers to and think I must be reading a different one to him! Personally, I think IOSH is quite right to raise the issue of remedial orders here, because, as I understand it, those issued under HSWA are necessarily focused on very limited, immediate causes (not least, because the orders leave those who get them without related liability for their duration – see http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...ties.htm#remedial_orders). I must say I was more than a bit surprised that Sir Ian Blair, interviewed on TV following the verdict, said he was going to go away and think about possible improvements (or words to that effect)…certainly no indication of any requirement or compulsion!

To my mind there’s no suggestion in the press release that remedial orders in general are new…just that they need to be far more effective! And incidentally, as I recently learned from the ‘Legionella report’ (Barrow-in-Furness), HSE, March 2007, the use of ROs under the new Corporate Manslaughter / Homicide Act could actually be considered new, in the sense that this wasn’t previously possible under manslaughter convictions. The powers under the new Act do seem to me an ideal opportunity to make sure that such orders are more effective. I also see the press release goes on to explain that apparently the new act won’t apply to this sort of ‘police dealing with suicide bombers’ situation, something I’d been a bit unclear on. Anyway, like others, I’ll await the IPCC and Inquest findings with interest, as I don’t think this is one that will go away!

Lizzy.

Posted By Lizzy
Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I don’t think practitioners do forget s.42…surely their companies are subject to it and anyway, aren’t many IOSH members also enforcers themselves? I agree that some employers (hopefully not many) may not be aware of the new powers the CM Act brings over and above existing manslaughter convictions and think this may be the reason for raising it? Afterall, statements are really aimed at journalists and media and not practitioners, hence their style? I’ve worked in a number of very different organisations over the years, with various PR teams, and think the IOSH press releases I’ve seen are fine.

Regarding your point that ‘nothing changes’, I’m afraid I must beg to differ . I’ve recently helped someone working on a dissertation on 'Corporate Accountability' issues and it seems to me the whole point is that we simply don’t know how the new CM Act ROs will be used yet…what we do know is that the new offence will take account of ‘attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices’ and so arguably, the associated ROs should be able to tackle these thorny problems? Personally, I hope this means the Courts being able to order longer-term solutions such as cultural / behavioural programmes or training of senior staff (some of which may take months or even years!).

So, I see nothing wrong with the press release itself, just your particular interpretation of it…however, as I see you say you’ve no problems with the current weakness of ROs being publicly raised in this way, hopefully you’ll agree with me that there’s little point in bringing prosecutions if you don’t also prevent ongoing and future problems.

Lizzy.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
The remedial orders in HASWA section 42, have rarely been imposed by the courts. This is largely due to the fact that by the time a case gets to court the causes of the incident have been remedied due HSE Enforcement Notices and/or in mitigation by the defence.

I suspect the same will apply to the CM Act as well. Therefore the remedial aspect is little more than a 'red herring.'

Ray

Posted By GARRY WIZZ
I would have to conclude that there was a failure by the police.This had a terrible end result.

The H&S prosecution, what a complete panto of the highest order that originated from people who have no knowledge or experience of conflicts that have death as a possible outcome.

This is a war on terror. So lets fight a war nice and clean, follow the rules that are aimed at a safe working environment. Or we could face up to the terrible consequences of engaging in war

War is war, once weapons are released then casualties are going to be the order of the day. There is only one defining situation to war, who wins.

Public enquiry, good idea. Learn from your mistakes. Poor judgement is quite normal but it has a big impact in this situation. The best people selected to defend you will still get it wrong.

This prosecution will have 2 outcomes.

Systems and procedures will be reviewed, improved and tested to try and seek perfection for all situations.

At the next event they may fail. One of the reasons they will fail is because when the bullets and bombs move onto the street the police will PAUSE, it will have been built into the system.That pause will lead to casualties. Then they will be prosecuted for not acting.

When things go wrong, we have this mentality that someone must carry the can.

Negligence, is not acceptable.
Poor judgement, happens every day.

And to top it all off, the government are as much to blame as the police.