Posted By holmezy Baggie, you lot might pass us Rams on the way down.... ACOPS arent legally binding, however, they are an approved standard. You don't have to follow them, but if something goes wrong with your method you have to be able to demonstrate that your method was as good as, or better than the ACOP. So, if you can justify driving on the right hand side of the road whilst all others are on the left..... Holmezy Supporting the Rams drives me to drink, however, its usually a very short journey and I'm usually quite easily led....

Posted By Ali Yes, ACOPS are not legally binding. However, the magistrate will take inro account the acop when looking at what you have to offer in mitigation.If you can demonstrate that you took reasonably practicable measures other than following the acop, then this too will be acceptable. Following the acop just means that this is one route to compliance. BS are different on the other hand and can be legally binding (eg BS6206 for safety glass, BS 2037 for Al ladders)

Posted By willhiem ACOP's are not legal documents but they can be used as evidence should a prosecution be brought against a party who were seen to not be in compliance with the methods / standards prescribed in the ACOP.

Posted By Malcolm Hogarth Ali, you are correct when you state "the magistrate will take into account the acop when looking at what you have to offer in mitigation" Bear in mind that it will be Magistrates (plural) unless the case is heard by a District Judge, (modern term for stipendary Magistrate),who sits alone. As far as the comment that they will take into account the ACoP etc; you will find that Magistrates see relatively few health and safety cases and would need to be reminded/ prompted by the prosecutor of the need to take such things into account. Malcolm

Posted By Chris Packham I have a question: If the ACoP will be considered as the standard against which my alternative methods will be assessed, what happens when I have complied with the ACoP but this has resulted in a risk assessment that was incorrect, with a resultant adverse health effect? I can demonstrate that if you follow the guidance on risk assessment in the ACoP for COSHH to the letter it is perfectly possible to arrive at an assessment of negligible risk when the reverse is the case. So as employer I then end up with one or more employees with skin problems. (Actually, in the case in question it was around 20 out of a workforce of 200!) Who is then liable for the health problem? Am I being cynical if I assume that it would be me? Chris

Posted By Halesowen (going to Wembley) Baggie I have been to a few magistrates courts to see h&s cases and they are really eye opening. Nobody really has a clue on h&s law apart from maybe the prosecuter (hse). The guy that sits at the front advising the magistrates in one case was asking the hse on what to do and the defending solicitor should have brought along a shovel because he was just putting the defendant deeper in mire. Quite an eye opener really, i recommend going along.

Posted By Malcolm Hogarth Halesowen etc..... I would say that you just about hit the nail on the head on that one. By the way, the guy (or gal)who sits at the front is the Legal Adviser (used to be known as Court Clerk). Their role is to advise the Magistrates on points of Law. I would say that as the majority of their work involves routine criminal law, with the odd bit of non - payment of TV licences, Non payment of Council Tax, School non attendence etc, then their knowledge of Health and Safety Legislation is fairly sketchy. Hence the reason they refer to the prosecutor. I guess they would be similarly stuck on environmental issues. To digress slightly; there is a similar anomoly (if that is the correct word) with Judges in the Crown Court dealing with motoring offences. They see them few and far between, apart from very serious cases and appeals, that they sometimes struggle with getting it right. Malcolm