Hi All,

I have just read a CPS document that states that the 'reverse burden of proof', does not relate to S40 in relation to S7 offences, and that a prosecution would have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that an individual had breached S7 (reasonable care for himself or others).

Was it only me that didn't know this, is it common knowledge..

http://www.cps.gov.uk/le...ficers_and_firefighters/[12/04/2011 14:33:02]

Ken

This may be usefull for you

http://www.legislation.g...ukpga/1974/37/section/40

I am not sure what all this really means. If a member of the emergency services risks their own life during a rescue I cannot manage any circumstances where a prosecution under section 7 would have occurred, even before this ‘new’ guidance came in The prosecuting authorities were always suppose to look at the whether the prosecution was in the public interest and with high expectation of success. So this sort of thing never happened This is just the government trying to make it look like they are doing something about ‘elf ‘nd safety’ when they are reality simply reinstating existing policy. A sop to the Daily Mail perhaps?

Thanks Ray,

will the HSE use the same criteria as the CPS, in that under S40/S7 the reverse burden of proof does not apply, and that the beyond reasonable doubt will be the standard?

Hi Alan, have you read the CPS press release? It clearly states: 'Unlike in other health and safety offences, there is no issue of "reasonable practicability" and no reverse burden of proof under S40 HSWA in respect of S7 HSWA offences. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the acts of the individual were such they amount to the person not taking "reasonable care" for the health and safety of himself or others. In the exceptional circumstances under consideration, a police officer or firefighter may act in a way which shows a considerable disregard for their own safety.'

I have just communicated with an associate, a well known H&S lawyer, and he confirms what I suspected. The CPS press release is nothing more than a smokescreen [my words] and in criminal law cases have to be 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' is a standard requirement.

'In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.'

In other words, the prosecution need only show that there was a breach of h&s law, normally by virtue of an accident or injury, and the accused must show what they did in order to prevent an accident or injury.