Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi
So according to statistics released the number of prosecutions under sec 37 has increased by some 400%
This seems grossly disproportionate to the prosecutions under sec 7
So why aren't the bods on the ground not getting the message ?
After all a large number of these events must be down to the acts or omissions of the guys on the ground ?
thoughts ?
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi J - can you supply a source to the figures you are commenting on?
My initial thought was a 400% increase in a very low number still leaves a very low number.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi David
Statistics from this months SHP tells us the 400% rise over the previous 5 years .
I do understand what your saying , so I suppose it could be a case of ie 400% of 10 isn't a high number .
I was just trying to get the thoughts on possibly the reason why it seems that by my understanding and previous experience that people at the coal face don't seem to have a the understanding of there actions .
What I am trying to say is there must be frustration in some companies at board level where they believe everything they have a duty to do and they believe they are doing and some employees just completely have no regard for
my reference to sec7 maybe out of context , I do apologise I hope I have cleared this up a little ?
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks J - I will have a look at the article.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
I did a search on the prosecutions database and the following were recorded:
--7 breaches 2011
--8 breaches 2010
--9 breaches 2009
Now these were cases 'heard' in the particular year so the offence may have been committed earlier. And possibly the dB is not kept up tp date, and of course I may be missing something(?). However, seems at odds with a 400% increase.
I don't see the Journal in question but would be interested in what the article was based on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Or was it 400% in last 5 years over the 5 years before that? I've not got the willpower to check the dB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The reference to the article is page 8 of this month's SHP. As David H suggests, the 400% increase is only so high because comparative figures are so low eg 5 prosecutions in 2005/6. According to my calculations over a 12 year period there have been around 100 directors prosecuted for a s37 offence. Still a remarkably low figure when you consider that during this same period there would have been over 2000 employees killed at work, not counting ill health or members of the public and tens of thousands seriously injured.
Rather than have any sympathy for directors I believe that in the past they have got off very lightly. Indeed, it is common practice for smaller companies to go into voluntary liquidation to avoid prosecution, only for their complicit directors to start up another business using the same premises and equipment but with a different company name. Now that is a national scandal. Soon to be rectified shortly (I hope) with a Private Member's Bill - http://www.shponline.co....after-worker-fatalities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
So what are the actual numbers for the periods being compared? None of the years referred to in my post and Ray's post give rise to a 400% difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think that a 400% (or indeed any) increase in s.37 convictions is remarkable when you consider the legal hurdles the prosecution has to get over to convict under this provision of the HSWA. It is almost miraculous that there have been any recent convictions when you consider the government's and particularly, David Cameron's public stance on health and safety.
Regards.
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Very valid points made here guys , yes Ray going on Barnaby figures 100 seems fairly consistent over a 12 year period .
I found it very difficult to find reliable stats to compare the sec 7 to 37 that's why I was just really wondering IF they were disproportionate . I didn't want to come across as having sympathy for the wrongs of previous management , far from it but 2 wrongs don't make 1 right either ?
djupnorth , I cant understand the reasoning for the stances you refer to , surely they are irrelevant as it is the enforcing authorities who ultimately decide to prosecute regardless of public opinion or even Mr Cameron s very recent outburst ( not at all help full I agree ) your point will be far more valid going foreword from now I agree yes .fair point
I suppose without real data to compare with its rather futile to try and compare and ultimately get real stats , I was hoping to find possible reasons as to why the guys at the coal face still after all the coverage still don't get it. I personally believe the best time to get this point across would be at induction
I never once at any induction or even briefings were introduced to sec 7, after all it is the very basic requirement of working on site isn't it ? wouldn't be a difficult subject to at least touch on. or am I in my lack of experience being rather naive ?
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Joe, s7 prosecutions are quite rare and as a rule s7 is used to prosecute employees of a supervisory grade who should have known and/or done better than they did. There are of course alternative offences to s7 which can be used instead - for instance, gross negligent manslaughter where death is involved. However, most h&s employee violations can be dealt with via the company's disciplinary machinery.
It would be a very difficult exercise to rationalise s7 v s37 prosecutions. The reason being is that there are far more duties for employers to comply with than employees. Notwithstanding that, the authorities are reluctant to prosecute employees because a company is responsible for the risks they create, including those they employ by ensuring they are competent. Employees seldom have the resources to pay a substantial fine, so it is hardly worthwhile the authorities prosecuting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
That's well put Ray
I now am a lot nearer to the point I was trying to understand thanks .
although I understand supervisory grade would fall into sec 36 ? but in practice this doesn't happen then ?
also
In there "reluctance" to prosecute employees then doesn't this make sec 7 basically redundant ? because the in house punishment could possibly vary greatly ? and
Therefore what would constitute a sec 7 then ? , I would say a gross negligent manslaughter would be and is a rarer event .I know I have gone of track here a bit sorry
j
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Wasn't this report as a result of a journalist FOI query? The story also went that it took a while for the HSE to pull together the 'stats' as it's not that easy to simply pick this data from the HSE site.
What I found interesting was that a good proportion (over half?) were said to be unrelated to any accident. Couldn't quite get that.
The use of s7 against senior management as an alternative to s37 seems to be gaining popularity; there is one in SHP this week. But is that because a s37 can only succeed if the company are also found guilty. And the definition of director . . .
Not being a lawyer I may have missed something here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For the record, a company does not have to prosecuted before an indictment for a s37 offence, only the company must be shown to be at fault. Why s7 is preferred to s37 for senior officers I could not say, except the aforementioned caveat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks guys
I have a better understanding now . definitely a topic which will get more attention in the coming months maybe .
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Bet you are glad you brought the subject up eh J?
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.