Posted By peter gotch http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...m?go=news.release&id=504 Geoffrey Podger's comments make interesting reading. I don't think a lot of corporate lawyers are working on a no win, no fee basis. Mr Podger complains that companies are not pleading guilty early enough. However, this may often reflect risk assessment as to the implications of going to trial... - ie we think we're not guilty but there is a chance that a jury will convict - if so, resulting in lack of discount in penalty. - hence, late guilty plea Perhaps, HSE should look at the cases it is losing - in whole or in part - e.g. any breach NOT causative of accident - and review whether investigations are being pursued with sufficient vigour, AND with the collection of BEST evidence. ...and thereafter, NOT issue press releases which are sometimes demonstratably unnecessarily melodramatic, and certainly not indicative of what a company has actually pleaded to. [For legal reasons, I cannot give specific examples on a forum such as this] Regards, Peter

Posted By Dave Daniel My experience over 30 years is that companies often plead guilty even when there is contention. The HSE are their own worst enemy in seeking to prosecute on tenuous gounds and with minimal real evidence. There also seems to be a denial of acceptance of legal precedent. One of my clients was recently brought to court 3 years after a fatality, after much prevarication by the EHO, supported by the HSE. Most of the allegations were dropped and finally the company agreed to plead guilty to not having written a risk assessment on the basis that this was unconnected with the circumstances of the fatality and were fined a correspondingly modest sum. There was a case for even disputing this too, but it was simpler and cheaper to plead guilty. Not much of an outcome for 3 years work.... Perhaps the idea that someone [else] must be to blame whenever someone dies needs to be re-visited...