This doesn’t really surprise me unfortunately. I have seen this attitude (probably not the right word) that because of the exemption from prosecution that certain liabilities will be taken. This, however, does not apply to contractors working within the MoD and on their premises, but sometimes does seem to be the assumption at times. I not commenting directly on the case in question (as only know what I have read) but have witnessed the negative side to such an exemption.

It involves asbestos management on a MoD base, where a facilities management company and defence estates failed to follow up on advice. The facilities management company pleaded guilty and was fined but Defence Estates is exempt criminal prosecution.

It also means that sometimes what should be done isn't!

Freelance banged my head against that wall and still have the scars. In my opinion it isn’t the system that is in place, it is those who take advantage of the system. The knowing that if it does go wrong then can it affect me personally principle! An example of this is I raised a real concern but the senior manager (insert military ranking in this scenario) involved in this justified that nothing needed to be done, even though it was a clear breach of the HSWA. On replacement of that particular manager, the new one was more open to finding a solution one that didn’t even resulted in a financial loss of any description, just plain common sense. They both knew that they wouldn’t be directly responsible but one had more moral scruples than the other.

Ok I think the issue of Crown Immunity is slightly over done here. I work for an agency that has this and our managers and directors take H&S seriously. There are two reasons for this: 1. Even if the organisation has Crown Immunity, individuals do not and it is possible for staff including directors to be prosecuted for H&S failures (connive and consent anyone?). I have informed them of this several times and it has lodged in their collective mind. 2. A mechanism exists for a Crown censure of a body that would have been prosecuted if it had not had immunity. Essentially it is a formal telling off. ( if you think about it what is the point if fining a government department since the money from the fine and costs simply goes back to central funds where it original came from anyway!) it is public knowledge and quite embarrassing for all concerned- a black mark for the organisation, bonuses might be threatened etc. Evidence suggests that the biggest element of criminal deterrence is the not the sentence but being publically caught and exposed. At our sites we keep a close eye on the contractor and monitor what they are doing and they feedback to us. Not perfect but it sort of works. Incidentally they are another division of the same contractor that was working for the MoD.