HSWA Section 33 Prosecution Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

rich_bannister		#1 Posted : 20 January 2012 11:30:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Hi, Just having a discussion at work: Can an individual be prosecuted under HSWA section 33? I'm thinking along the lines of a prohibition notice being issued, and an individual taking it upon themselves to not comply with the notice. Would the individual be prosecuted under section 33 (is it even technically possible?) or would they more likely be prosecuted under section 7? Thanks,
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Joebaxil		#2 Posted : 20 January 2012 11:48:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Hi Rich . My understanding is there are a number of OTHER offences which i would interpret could be done by a individual . 1; offence to make false statement & to make a false entry in a register or to forge or use forged documents . prison 12 month or £ 20 k fine or both So I presume this would count as being prosecuted under the 74 act . I will be happy for some more experienced folks on here to correct me ? j
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

mylesfrancis		#3 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:04:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		In effect, the summons would mention both sections 7 and 33. Section 7 imposes the duty and section 33 makes it an offence to fail to comply with that duty. The wording would be along the lines of: "Joe Bloggs failed to exercise a duty imposed by section 7 HSWA in that he failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of himself and others by being an idiot, whereby he is guilty of an offence as provided by section 33(1)(a) of the HSWA 1974 as amended".
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Norfolkboy		#4 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:13:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		see http://www.shponline.co....uilty-in-buncefield-case
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

rich_bannister		#5 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:15:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Thanks for all of your responses. Very helpful. I think you've solved the discussion at work.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ron Hunter		#6 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:16:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Section 33(1)(g) describes the specific offence so I suggest the simple answer is yes.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

edwardh		#7 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:17:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		The offence of failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice can only be committed by the 'person' against whom the notice was issued. So if it was issued against the employer, the reckless employee who took it upon themselves to act contrary to the notice would not be guilty of breaching the notice [the employer probably would be though] but could be failing under s7.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

HSSnail		#8 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:31:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		I think Mylesfrancis has provide a good description of how the offence would be worded. But I am intrigued at to the HASAW act 1974 as amended reference. I have never seen the as amended after the HASAW etc Act 1974 before - certain regulations yes but never the act have I missed something?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

mylesfrancis		#9 Posted : 20 January 2012 12:40:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		HSWA has been amended numerous times since 1974, hence the "as amended" bit. It's just an administrative may of saying that the most recent version of the Act is being used rather than the original as made version
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

HSSnail		#10 Posted : 20 January 2012 13:24:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Thanks myles The point I was makeing was that i had never seen the words added after the HASAW etc act 1974 in any quote which is what intigued me. I undertand the principle infact i hate it when people refer to COSHH 2004 as apposed to COSHH 2002 as amended. Thanks again
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

HSSnail		#11 Posted : 20 January 2012 13:25:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		opps sorry forgot to spell check! Edit function IOSH please.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

peter gotch		#12 Posted : 20 January 2012 13:31:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		As Edward says the offence of not complying with the Notice is committed by the recipient (subject to defences such as based on R v HTM) The person who causes this could be prosecuted via Section 36. (or separately under Section 7 - but with no link to the S33(1)(g) breach.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Safety Smurf		#13 Posted : 20 January 2012 13:47:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		mylesfrancis wrote: In effect, the summons would mention both sections 7 and 33. Section 7 imposes the duty and section 33 makes it an offence to fail to comply with that duty. The wording would be along the lines of: "Joe Bloggs failed to exercise a duty imposed by section 7 HSWA in that he failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of himself and others by being an idiot, whereby he is guilty of an offence as provided by section 33(1)(a) of the HSWA 1974 as amended". I would like to offer a suggestion for an amendment to the HSWA 1974. Futher I propose that it be known as "Myles' Law" and that it makes an offence of being an 'idiot'. I would also like to see it being made a offence for being a moron and a cretin and in such away that person could be tried for all three offences simultaineously, sentences to be custodial and non-concurrent. ;-)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

mylesfrancis		#14 Posted : 20 January 2012 13:57:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Whilst I was an Inspector, myself and several colleagues were strong advocates of a Gross Stupidity Act which could have covered the various bases of idiot, moron, cretin, dipstick, muppet, and numpty.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest