Posted By Pete Chidwick I appreciate that we are likely to get incomplete information, but taken together the IOSH news posting and the following write ups seem to establish the basic facts: http://www.mackssolicito...ic-accident-at-work.html http://www.mycompensatio...e-death-lynda-trebilcock Based on this, I’m wondering why the HSE didn't also take any action against senior managers / directors. This appears to have been an entirely preventable accident that was not only horrific but reflected long established failings that at the minimum the departmental manager / production manager / production director should have been aware of over an extended period of time. Recent case law on HSW S37 has clarified that senior managers and directors can’t avoid negligence by being ignorant of the facts and should have systems in place to make them aware of certainly significant, long standing failings. This was a machine capable of killing in an horrific way, a long standing arrangement of overriding the sensor, and a recently employed, apparently risk unaware / untrained person. Wouldn't it also have been appropriate for HSE to have taken action against key individuals to send out a message that it will pursue these types of failures (even at the risk of losing it)? Am I alone in sometimes wondering why H&S professionals get so aerated about relatively trivial risks and naval gaze constantly in our attempts to do good, when situations like this on the face of it at least appear to undermine what ‘real / proportionate / risk based / sensible H&S’ and the HSE’s 'targeted / proportionate / just / visible' enforcement policy should be about? Apologies if I'm sounding righteous and emotive, but we seem to spend so much time these days watching our backs for the slightest sign of 'having missed something' whilst cases like this really, really underline what it should all be about.

Posted By Pete Chidwick Ray, the HSE has in the past at least taken a fair few prosecutions but the minimal fines have not been much of deterrent, and soon forgotten in some cases. The issue here is why didn't HSE pursue this sort of situation vigorously against individuals because that would be much more likely to send out an important message - and appears well justified. I'd be surprised if S37 cases follow - much simpler to hear the evidence once. The s37 is a natural follow on from the corporate body being found guilty. But, I could (hopefully) be wrong. Pete

Posted By db Just one thing... Evidence. Assuming that there is evidence against individuals. The truth is it's sometimes easier to take a case where the evidence is undisputable. Unfortunately, HSE does have to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute for a breach where the evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt and potentially end up losing, paying costs and potentially paying the defendants costs. And that's if there was any evidence against individuals in the first place. You can guarantee that if there was sufficient evidence, the police would have been looking at individuals for manslaughter before s37 or s7 were considered.

Posted By David Gault Pete, You are definitely not alone. It appears to have been an avoidable accident if only (isn't that a lamentable phrase) people had acted responsibly. I have been to afctories where people have over-ridden switches and their attitude is always one of doing it to expedite the job rather than remembering why the safety mechanism is there. All too often not only is the swithch over-ridden but either the person who did it leaves it in the unsafe state (negligence or forgetfulness) or it becomes common practice and they assume people know. There is no excuse and I really feel for that woman's family. It puts some of our work such as protecting against trivial claims for impercpetible bruises(really) into sharp perspective.