Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
zoltangera  
#1 Posted : 02 August 2011 11:55:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

I am just flicking through July's copy of HSM magazine and my eye caught the headline

"Changes to construction site scaffolding regulations; Are you safe?"

The article then goes on to state

"In addition to this there have been several changes in LEGISLATION since 2005 affecting the scaffolding industry in order to make construction sites a safer place to work. In late 2010 the British Standards Institution formally withdrew BS 5793 and replaced it........."

Have I missed something here?
A Kurdziel  
#2 Posted : 02 August 2011 12:08:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

British Standards are not legislation. They might be regarded as examples of good practice and you can use this as evidence in court to say that by following a British Standard you are doing everything reasonable but following this is definitely not compulsory.
Once again people are trying to prey on the eager but naive.

zoltangera  
#3 Posted : 02 August 2011 12:39:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

A Kurdziel wrote:
British Standards are not legislation. They might be regarded as examples of good practice and you can use this as evidence in court to say that by following a British Standard you are doing everything reasonable but following this is definitely not compulsory.
Once again people are trying to prey on the eager but naive.



Guidance notes are NOT admissible in court unless used by an expert
marklinton  
#4 Posted : 02 August 2011 12:40:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
marklinton

I've not read the article but could they be referring to the Work at Height Regs and then the writter has gone on to mentioned changes in standards in the next sentence.
zoltangera  
#5 Posted : 02 August 2011 13:02:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

WAHR are not mentioned once in this full page article!
Clairel  
#6 Posted : 02 August 2011 13:52:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

zoltangera wrote:
A Kurdziel wrote:
British Standards are not legislation. They might be regarded as examples of good practice and you can use this as evidence in court to say that by following a British Standard you are doing everything reasonable but following this is definitely not compulsory.
Once again people are trying to prey on the eager but naive.



Guidance notes are NOT admissible in court unless used by an expert


Really???? You should have told me that before I successfully prosecuted several companies for breaching various bits of legislation but using HSE guidance docs as evidence of what the industry best practice was that they were expected to achieve. If only myself, my bosses, the defence lawyers and the courts had realised that what I was submitting was not allowed!!
zoltangera  
#7 Posted : 02 August 2011 13:58:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

Clairel wrote:
zoltangera wrote:
A Kurdziel wrote:
British Standards are not legislation. They might be regarded as examples of good practice and you can use this as evidence in court to say that by following a British Standard you are doing everything reasonable but following this is definitely not compulsory.
Once again people are trying to prey on the eager but naive.



Guidance notes are NOT admissible in court unless used by an expert


Really???? You should have told me that before I successfully prosecuted several companies for breaching various bits of legislation but using HSE guidance docs as evidence of what the industry best practice was that they were expected to achieve. If only myself, my bosses, the defence lawyers and the courts had realised that what I was submitting was not allowed!!



WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (holds handbag like a squirrel holding a nazelnut to his mouth pose)

Maybe you are an "expert"? Only going on what the HSE say themselves (See link below)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...ourt/physical-public.htm
Clairel  
#8 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:08:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

As far as I'm aware HSE inspoectors are not considered to be experts but stiull routinely submit guidance into bundles.

Of course if they do consider their inspectors to be experts (they never told me I was considered an expert and I don't consider myself an expert!)then your point is irrelevant as they can therefore be used in a court by the HSE and others.

Although everyone bangs on about the fact that guidance and BS's are not compulsory, that might be technically true but it is difficult to prove that you have done everything required if you don't meet that standard / guidance. In reality they do stand up to the test in court, which is why I always encourage employers to meet the guidance unless they can find another equally effective measure, but I haven't found any of them yet! ;-)
zoltangera  
#9 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

Clairel wrote:
As far as I'm aware HSE inspoectors are not considered to be experts but stiull routinely submit guidance into bundles.

Of course if they do consider their inspectors to be experts (they never told me I was considered an expert and I don't consider myself an expert!)then your point is irrelevant as they can therefore be used in a court by the HSE and others.

Although everyone bangs on about the fact that guidance and BS's are not compulsory, that might be technically true but it is difficult to prove that you have done everything required if you don't meet that standard / guidance. In reality they do stand up to the test in court, which is why I always encourage employers to meet the guidance unless they can find another equally effective measure, but I haven't found any of them yet! ;-)


Thanks for your apology.....I like being factually correct when I post ;-)
Clairel  
#10 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:19:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

I didn't apologise. Don't feel a need to on this - and I do apologise when I feel I need to.

If going on your point that guidance can only be submitted in court as evidence by experts - which includes inspectors - then what is your point?

Like I said on many occasions I successfully used guidance docs as the benchmark the defendant should have achieved. Therefore it can be successfully used in court.

By stating that the can't be used in courts it's misleading. They can and are used in courts and I would never encourage anyone to ignore official guidance becuase that is what will be held up in court as the benchmark and that is what will stick - unless you can find another 'expert' that says otherwise. I've never seen that happen.

That article may be misleading in using incorrect terminology but so is it misleading to say that guidance is just guidance and can't be used in court. Forget technicalities this is the real world.
zoltangera  
#11 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:37:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

Clairel wrote:
I didn't apologise. Don't feel a need to on this - and I do apologise when I feel I need to.

If going on your point that guidance can only be submitted in court as evidence by experts - which includes inspectors - then what is your point?

Like I said on many occasions I successfully used guidance docs as the benchmark the defendant should have achieved. Therefore it can be successfully used in court.

By stating that the can't be used in courts it's misleading. They can and are used in courts and I would never encourage anyone to ignore official guidance becuase that is what will be held up in court as the benchmark and that is what will stick - unless you can find another 'expert' that says otherwise. I've never seen that happen.

That article may be misleading in using incorrect terminology but so is it misleading to say that guidance is just guidance and can't be used in court. Forget technicalities this is the real world.



1st = I didnt say guidance notes couldnt be used in a court

2nd = Just because you were Cracker/Frost/Morse and successfully prosecuted a defendant it doesnt mean that you were following correct procedures.
I have been to observe health and safety cases at my local magistrates court and what I witnessed was a joke, the only person who knew anything about H&S law was the prosecuting enforcing officer (this includes the defendents solicitor, and the justices clerk who was advising the magistrates) so I am not surprised that you were successful in getting a conviction. "Ultra vires" and all that.

3rd = I didnt say inspectors were "experts" either (I just stating that you may have been, hence the use of the question mark)
Moderator 3  
#12 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:41:14(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
Moderator 3

Ahem, folks please keep it civil and be aware that perception of your posts can vary dramatically from intent.

Please bear in mind Forum Rule 2 when posting on a topic.

Carry on.
HSSnail  
#13 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:42:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Is the hot Weather getting to people? - please also see the thread on Pregnant workers. Think we all need to have a cold dink take a deep breath and remember we are supposed to be professional people.

Brian
HSSnail  
#14 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:44:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

O great - once again a post appears while I am typing - not trying to be teachers pet Honest!
zoltangera  
#15 Posted : 02 August 2011 14:48:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

Moderator 3 wrote:
Ahem, folks please keep it civil and be aware that perception of your posts can vary dramatically from intent.

Please bear in mind Forum Rule 2 when posting on a topic.

Carry on.


We cant keep it civil Mr.Mod as we are discussing criminal law.....dont you know owt.

Clairel - I hope I havent offended you in any way if I have I apologise.

Im off out on site now so wont be playing any longer today!!!
Lodge15424  
#16 Posted : 02 August 2011 15:47:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lodge15424

Message to moderator, please can you take Zoltangera off the string. He is being extremely rude to someone who has made some very valid points.
Andrew W Walker  
#17 Posted : 02 August 2011 15:54:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

quote=brian hagyard]Is the hot Weather getting to people? - please also see the thread on Pregnant workers. Think we all need to have a cold dink take a deep breath and remember we are supposed to be professional people.

Brian


Couldn't agree more.

As I'm relatively new to IOSH I find it very disconcerting the way that some of the posts have gone of late.

Andy

Lodge15424  
#18 Posted : 02 August 2011 16:25:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Lodge15424

For what it is worth I am with Clairel. I am not a legal expert however my understanding (as a CMIOSH with 20 years HS&E experience and 40 years industrial experience) is that the enforcing authorities can (through their legal people if necessary) use legislation, acops, guidance, british standards, trade association publications or any other documentation to demonstrate good practice that the defendants could, and should, have been aware of. I, for one, would not want to stand up in court and say that as a British Standard is not a legal document it cannot be used as evidence of good practice.
As I said, I'm with Clairel.
Clairel  
#19 Posted : 02 August 2011 18:33:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

zoltangera wrote:
Clairel wrote:


2nd = Just because you were Cracker/Frost/Morse and successfully prosecuted a defendant it doesnt mean that you were following correct procedures.
I have been to observe health and safety cases at my local magistrates court and what I witnessed was a joke, the only person who knew anything about H&S law was the prosecuting enforcing officer (this includes the defendents solicitor, and the justices clerk who was advising the magistrates) so I am not surprised that you were successful in getting a conviction. "Ultra vires" and all that.



Hee hee hee.........You have me pegged wrong, rather than being Cracker /Frost / Morse, I was the prosecuting HSE inspector on many occasions - one of those ones you refer to that was 'the only person who knew anything about H&S law'. So now are you suprised that I was successful? I did follow correct procedures and I do know the law. I had the authority, I was within my authority and the successful prosecutions were valid.

Bad use of the term 'ultra vires' in my opinion. Also not a good move to try and undermine the professionalism of another forum user, by accusing them of not following correct legal procedures, without knowing the full facts.

I think I'll leave it there now and leave it down to the Mods to decide whether you've been too hasty in your comments this time.
Gary Briggs  
#20 Posted : 02 August 2011 21:40:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gary Briggs

I am just flicking through July's copy of HSM magazine and my eye caught the headline

"Changes to construction site scaffolding regulations; Are you safe?"

The article then goes on to state

"In addition to this there have been several changes in LEGISLATION since 2005 affecting the scaffolding industry in order to make construction sites a safer place to work. In late 2010 the British Standards Institution formally withdrew BS 5793 and replaced it........."

Have I missed something here?

Yes you have missed something BS 5973 not 5793 wake up you lot

Gary
Moderator 3  
#21 Posted : 03 August 2011 10:46:14(UTC)
Rank: Moderator
Moderator 3

This topic has been re-instated after consideration by the moderating team. Forum users should remember that after moderating action some posts lose their context.

Therefore, it may be the case that some of the posts in this topic have been hidden for that reason. Users are also asked to remember forum rule 2 when using these forums.
holmezy  
#22 Posted : 03 August 2011 13:14:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
holmezy

Hi,

just to add my tuppeneth,

doesnt section 17 HASAWA allow for ACOPS etc to be considered as "benchmark" standards, and be used as a "measure" in court? Equal to or better than........and all that Jazz!

Holmezy
zoltangera  
#23 Posted : 03 August 2011 13:37:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

Clairel wrote:
zoltangera wrote:
A Kurdziel wrote:
British Standards are not legislation. They might be regarded as examples of good practice and you can use this as evidence in court to say that by following a British Standard you are doing everything reasonable but following this is definitely not compulsory.
Once again people are trying to prey on the eager but naive.



Guidance notes are NOT admissible in court unless used by an expert


Really???? You should have told me that before I successfully prosecuted several companies for breaching various bits of legislation but using HSE guidance docs as evidence of what the industry best practice was that they were expected to achieve. If only myself, my bosses, the defence lawyers and the courts had realised that what I was submitting was not allowed!!



As my previous post is not viewable the following is from the HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE WEBPAGE (ENFORCEMENT GUIDE)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/en...ical-public.htm#P18_2902

Approved Codes of Practice and Guidance Notes
4. Where documents referred to in Regulations set out standards, etc., which the Regulations make mandatory, non-compliance with them will constitute a breach of the Regulations. There should be no difficulty in getting such documents accepted by the court, although it may on occasion be necessary to prove that the document in court is indeed the one referred to in the Regulations. A Stationery Office copy would meet such a requirement.

5. Approved Codes of Practice are admissible in evidence where they are relevant. 9 The notice of approval of the Code specifies those provisions on which the code gives guidance, and the expert witness should also make reference to this.

6. Guidance is not admissible unless introduced by an expert. You should still, however, produce an official copy in court.

NEBOSH (Ive passed diploma and certificate) and IOSH (managing safely) teach that guidance notes have no legal standing in a court so these are teaching falsehoods? Also there is no need for HSAW section 17 with regard to Acops I would have thought if guidance can be used.
Ron Hunter  
#24 Posted : 03 August 2011 13:46:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

I suggest there are several "confusing" elements within the referenced article.
Much is made of changes brought about by BS EN 12811-1, but the current (2003) version was published in June 2004. Something 7 years old can hardly be described as "new" or a "recent change".

That said, some of the key elements in the BS EN are quite frequently missing from independent scaffolds we see around today. Openings in working platforms for ladder access on independent scaffolds following "good practice" standards should have a fastenable cover over that access opening (in much the same way as portable access assemblies) or else provision to extend a guard rail or gate around the opening.
"Best practice" suggests having a ladder tower element outwith the working platform areas and providing stair assemblies where the work and access requirements are extensive.

To quote the current (2006) revision of HSG 150 "ensure there is safe access onto the work platforms, preferably from a staircase or ladder tower"

A complex and ever changing area this, and the commissioning client and those he charges with handover and weekly inspections are often at a disadvantage where training is out-of-date or the erector fails to provide all that should be there.

RayRapp  
#25 Posted : 03 August 2011 14:05:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Not wishing to get embroiled in an argument but, I think there is some confusion between a 'legal document' and document that can be used as evidence in court. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to this particular issue.

For instance, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, specifically requires the Jury to consider 'whether there was any health and safety legislation that related to the alleged breach...' 'The Jury may also (3) (b) have regard to any health and safety guidance that relates to the alleged breach.'

'(5) In this section “health and safety guidance” means any code, guidance, manual or similar publication that is concerned with health and safety matters and is made or issued (under a statutory provision or otherwise) by an authority responsible for the enforcement of any health and safety legislation.'

No mention of 'expert' in the above.

Canopener  
#26 Posted : 03 August 2011 14:18:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Glad to see that this one has been tidies up a bit! Sometimes it's worth standing back!

I haven't read the article so I can't really comment on that side of things. I also looked at the page referred to on the HSE website and was rather surprised to see the HSE suggest that guidance wasn't admissible unless introduced by an expert (whatever that is)

My old and rather battered copy of Principles says that guidance notes are 'persuasive' in the lower (Magistrates) courts (and I suggest that this is the reality) and useful in civil cases. It goes on to suggest that they have a 'quasi-legal' status. Ray's recent contribution, especially in relation to CMCHA does give food for thought.

Interestingly enough, I had an old copy of EH40 that was listed as guidance but I now note that the current list is 'legally binding'.

I suggest that although BS in themselves may not be 'law' some of them may be the means with which to comply with it.


Zimmy  
#27 Posted : 03 August 2011 14:26:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zimmy

For what it's worth. Our wiring regs (BS7671:2008 as amended) is not law BUT if we comply with it means that we will in all probability ccomply with the Electricity at Work Act 1989 (Law).
Zimmy  
#28 Posted : 03 August 2011 14:29:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zimmy

I we don't comply and we cannot prove that what we have done is either equal to, or better than, BS7671 then we are in big trouble
zoltangera  
#29 Posted : 03 August 2011 14:53:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
zoltangera

zimmy wrote:
For what it's worth. Our wiring regs (BS7671:2008 as amended) is not law BUT if we comply with it means that we will in all probability ccomply with the Electricity at Work Act 1989 (Law).


Yes I would say that applies to any best practice guidance (follow best practice and you wont be up before the beak in the first place). My problem is that I have been taught and have in black and white in numerous course notes and publications from NEBOSH & IOSH that

examples

"HSE Guidance is considered good practice but have no legal status."

"Industry Codes and Guides have no legal status."

A health and safety enforcing officer stated yesterday that all the above have been used to prosecute defendants in a court, even though the HSE website says that guidance cannot be used apart from expert witness use (again nothing about expert witness use in NEBOSH or IOSH notes).


Whats the point of Acops and section 17 of HSAW and why are Organisations that are teaching people with regard to health and safety stating that this guidance cannot be used in a court as evidence of a breach of statute,when looking at the general consensus on here, that this is false information.
Zimmy  
#30 Posted : 03 August 2011 15:09:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zimmy

I think its a case of what it says on the tin.

A guide is a guide and not a finite definition of a course of action. It is there to point us in the general direction of a safe action but cannot say what to do in detail as every situation is different. We, as competent people, have to steer our way through the mist and try and avoid bumping into any nasty things. It is up to us to comply

walker  
#31 Posted : 03 August 2011 15:52:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

zimmy wrote:
For what it's worth. Our wiring regs (BS7671:2008 as amended) is not law BUT if we comply with it means that we will in all probability ccomply with the Electricity at Work Act 1989 (Law).


Just in case less informed arre looking in - I know you really meant "regs" not act ;-)
jay  
#32 Posted : 03 August 2011 16:31:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

Perhaps the trainers are referring in a specific context and using an inappropriate chioce of words, i.e. ".....no legal status...." without additional clarification:-

Section 17 of HASAWA is about "Use of approved codes of practice in criminal proceedings" .

In simple terms, ACOPs have a special status in law. Failure to comply with the provisions of an ACOP may be taken by a court in criminal proceedings as evidence of a failure to comply with the requirements of the Act or of regulations to which the ACOP relates, unless it can be shown that those requirements were complied with in some other equally effective way.

Although HSE Guidance is not mentioned explicitly in HASAWA, the first few pages of any ACOP/Guidance has the following text:-


Approved Code of Practice and guidance:-

This Code has been approved by the Health and Safety Commission, with the consent of the Secretary of State. It gives practical advice on how to comply with the law. If you follow the advice you will be doing enough to comply with the law in respect of those specific matters on which the Code gives advice. You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law.

However, the Code has special legal status. If you are prosecuted for breach of health and safety law, and it is proved that you did not follow the relevant provisions of the Code, you will need to show that you have complied with the law in some other way or a court will find you at fault.

This document also includes other, more general guidance not having this special status. This guidance is issued by the Health and Safety Commission. Following the guidance is not compulsory and you are free to take other action. But if you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law. Health and safety inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance as illustrating good practice.
pete48  
#33 Posted : 03 August 2011 16:34:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

I haven't read the article but my starting point is that there is nothing factually incorrect with the statement about "changes in legislation that affect construction". If I take the comments from Gary Briggs as correct then the statement about the British Standard (BS) being updated is also factually correct.

I think we all know that British Standards (BS) are produced through consensus groups of those who are competent to identify a required standard and thus set out the currently agreed best practice. They are drafted and issued by the UK government National Standards Body.
The BSI site clearly says “Standards themselves are voluntary and not regulatory: sometimes Standards work alongside regulations, helping organizations to comply with UK or EU regulations by setting out the Standards that will meet the regulations.” The electrical example from Zimmie demonstrates this very clearly.
So it is correct to say that they have “no legal status” but that fact does not prevent them being referred to in court. We have been given an example of where they were used to support a prosecution where a legal duty was not met and equally one can choose to demonstrate that what one has done is as good as or better than the standard. However, given where the standards come from and how they are produced, agreed and drafted one might reasonably expect that a question might be posed as to whether any relevant standards exist and then that a fair amount of weight be given to any BS. Perhaps that is why the term “quasi legal” often appears.
The slightly semantic discussion about “only used by experts” is a bit of a red herring is it not? That they can be used is the important bit surely. If a case warranted it, I am sure an “expert” would be found, whatever or whoever that may be.
p48
Grant1962  
#34 Posted : 03 August 2011 16:53:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Grant1962

Hi Guys, I've seemed to have joined a heated debate here so would like to put another apsect into the mix!

I know that BS is a profit making company but why on earth do they not follow the HSE in making guidance / standards freely available when downloaded, this would allow the smaller companies to benifit from a more informed opinion on the subject matters?

sorry to throw that hand grenade in but Mt Lofsted should mandate this in his review!

Grant
pete48  
#35 Posted : 03 August 2011 17:25:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Grant, I hope you don't mind me saying that looks like a whole new topic to me,

p48
jay  
#36 Posted : 03 August 2011 17:28:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

I am not aware of any National Standards Organisation that provides free standards via the web. Standards making is costly and I doubt that in the current economic climate, it will governmental support.

The reason for making the HSE priced publications freely availabe was SME's, not for us professionals, although most of us knew that a lot of SME's do not have competence to interrest the Free ACOP's/Guidance.

A way forward could be read only/non-downloadable access, such as the type you get from the US NFPA website.
Zyggy  
#37 Posted : 04 August 2011 08:14:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

Clairel's experiences in Court mirror my own, but not I hasten to say as a prosecutor!

I have been involved in many cases at the Magistrates Courts & two at Crown Court (one as an expert witness for the defence) relating to fatal accidents.

The reality is that the Judge is the final arbiter as to what is admissible or not even though that could be the basis of a future appeal at a higher court.
edwardh  
#38 Posted : 04 August 2011 12:45:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
edwardh

My understanding as to the admissibility of "guidance" is as follows:

Any witness can give evidence that guidance exists... this can help establish that a risk was common knowledge within an industry and should have been foreseen; and can help in arguments of reasonably practicable [guidance on controlling the risk was readily available].

The content of the guidance can not be used on its own [i.e. without corroborating expert opinion] to show that a defendant did not [or did] meet a required legal standard such as SFAIRP.

In reality, as Clairel & zyggy say, the court is often so keen to have help in understanding the technical issues around a H&S case that they take whatever is available [ACOP, Standard, Guidance Note] unless someone formally objects. The defence is often in an awkward position because to object to the admission of a widely available document runs the risk of appearing shady...
A Kurdziel  
#39 Posted : 04 August 2011 14:23:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I think that it is safe to renter this debate.
British Standards are not law; they are just guidelines, which is why they are not published for free. Similarly we refer to CIBSE guidance when looking at light levels in offices etc.
When interpreting legislation including H&S law a court may use as an interpretive aid not only the actual legislation itself but any other document which might help them work out what a piece of legalisation means. For example if they are looking at an old piece of legislation where the meaning of the words is unclear they may refer to a dictionary of the time to establish the meaning of those words. In some cases they have looked at Hansard where the question has been “what did parliament mean when they made this law”. So a British Standard can be introduced into a court as evidence that an activity was being carried out (or not being carried out) so far as reasonably practicable. But anything brought into court like this can be challenged, which is why the HSE guidance (for its own staff) says that technical evidence like this should only be introduced by an ‘expert’ who knows what they are doing and can stand up to cross examination.
An ACoP is special in that it cannot be challenged as just guidance but MUST be taken into account when looking at looking whether someone has complied with the legislation.
If someone is not following an ACoP the onus is on them to establish that what they are doing provides the same level compliance as someone following the ACoP.
See
Health and Safety at Work Act Section 17
Use of Approved Codes of Practice in criminal proceedings.
(2) Any provision of the Code Of Practice which appears to the court to be relevant to the requirement or prohibition alleged to have been contravened SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE in evidence in the proceedings; and if it is proved that there was at any material time a failure to observe any provision of the code which appears to the court to be relevant to any matter which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove in order to establish a contravention of that requirement or prohibition, that matter SHALL BE TAKEN AS PROVED unless the court is satisfied that the requirement or prohibition was in respect of that matter complied with otherwise than by way of observance of that provision of the code.

That’s what I think anyway.
I got my CMIOSH and NEBOSH Dip a few years ago then I did a Law 'A' level in evening classes and I realised that what is taught in the NEBOSH law curriculum is massively oversimplified, but adequate for the day to day stuff we do.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.