Rank: New forum user
|
Hi can you help me please.
I am looking for some examples where an 'individual PTW issuer' has been prosecuted. I want to use a few examples in some training I have been asked to carryout.
If you can point me at an article, or similar that would be great.
Thankyou
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There have been many companies prosecuted due to accidents / incidents associated with poor PTW control - Piper Alpha was a classic.
However, "individual PTW issuers" would be protected under the employers vicarious liability in my view.
David
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Red
I doubt the information you seek is readily available because most prosecutions are pursuant to s2/3 of HWSA which does not drill down to individual actions and, s7 prosecutions are quite rare, finding one which is due to a PTW breach would be as rare as rocking horse...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David H, I don't think that the vicarious liability principle works in that way. If there is negligence by an individual, they remain negligent, regardless of any liability being passed on to their superiors. This is in civil law.
To be prosecuted under criminal law there needs to have been a breach of criminal law, for which personal responsibility cannot be passed on.
In the case of an individual knowingly issuing a PTW when there is significant uncontrolled risk I expect in extreme circumstances a charge of manslaughter could be brought, with a backup charge under HASAWA. Have to be very extreme though and agree with Ray's summation.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David H wrote:There have been many companies prosecuted due to accidents / incidents associated with poor PTW control - Piper Alpha was a classic.
David, I know failure of a 'permit system' contributed to the Piper Alpha disaster but I don't think the oil company was prosecuted, probably because it happened back in 1988. Other more knowledgable members here will have the knowledge on that.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Look in the SHP online "in court" section. you can do a search for key words ther but I noticed one dated 24th Feb 2011 which was a failure to monitor a contractor.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unless someone has any knowledge of a specific case, then I don’t think that you will be able to drill down through the HSE database to the extent or detail that you want. Realistically I woudl be surprised if there either is, or you could find a case this specific.
Like David, I am not convinced that an individual could escape prosecution through vicarious liability. Ray might be able/willing to elaborate!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Should have said - not quite what you want but may be of interest.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi - my reasoning was based on the fact that offshore - requests for permits have to be submitted 48 hrs in advance. During this time, there will be site visits, level 2 RAs, COSHH, lift lans, equipment checks etc and looking at what is going on around the proposed work site (symops) There is then a permit meeting to discuss the request and the controls in place - only then will a permit be issued. Therefore - not the issuer that could be held accountable.
David.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As the question has been asked - vicarious liability would have no standing in respect to criminal law. The employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employee(s) if the act was within the course of their employment as opposed to an individual frolic.
See: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd [1947] AC 1.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A PTW is not a legal requirement and so prosecution on the grounds of (...of what?????) is unlikely.
Any individual negligence would perhaps be prosecuted under HSWA S7, depending on what it is that you had in mind as being done wrong.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am certainly aware of a couple of cases where the individuals who authorised the permit were "almost" prosecuted. I cannot give details of the cases but in both the potential reasons for prosecution were failure to follow company procedures when issuing the permit (e.g. did not visit the site before issuing the paperwork) - I imagine the prosecutions would have been under HASAWA s7
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Lucy, Sadly not many contractors would supply information readily on their own failings - dirty washing etc. If you want to do some research - a Premier Boarding School (Listed Buildings) near Dover that was burnt down due in the main to a systematic failure of the Hot Works Permit System. Not sure if it has or will lead to a prosecution though. See attached link as a starter for 10: http://www.kentonline.co...7/dover_school_fire.aspxRegards Clive
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Claire, Interested in your comment that since a PTW isn't a legal requirement hence prosecution is unlikely.
Whilst I agree that there is no specific legal requirement consider the scenario for work within a confined space, say a tank that has held flamable contents. Surely a (unsafe) "system of work" that didn't include formal PTW could result in prosecution? The grounds for which might well include the failure to establish an overall safe system of work that should have involved:
isolation of incoming services, electrical feeds to stirrer motors etc (managed and controlled by a PTW) venting and confirmation that it was safe to enter - by atmosphere checks formal "permitted" entry - again managed by a permit
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Phil Grace wrote:Claire, Interested in your comment that since a PTW isn't a legal requirement hence prosecution is unlikely.
Surely a (unsafe) "system of work" that didn't include formal PTW could result in prosecution? The grounds for which might well include the failure to establish an overall safe system of work..
Phil It is the failure to have a safe system of work, not the issue of a PTW, that is the breach. Lucy I never listen to the 'almosy prosecuted' stories. There was either enough evidence for a prosecution or there wasn't. You wouldn't be prosecuted just for failing to follow a company procedure, they would have had to have done something unsafe, probbaly resulting in a accident. Isssuing a PTW does not ensure safety but it is part of a chain of events that could lead to a lack of safety. Not having a PTW could be seen as an aggravating factor in some circumstances. But not having the PTW on it's own would not cause an accident there would have to be other unafe acts too (ie not working safely).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Come on now Claire - prosecutions are taken if it is in the public interest.
If you have the choice of prosecuting a large blue chip company whose permit-to-work procedure has failed (and get lots of publicity) and a permit issuer, who had failed to follow the procedure and this lead directly to the incident that resulted in prosecution, but possibly taking both prosecutions is actually going to cost a lot more money, muddy the waters for the other companies you want to influence, and therefore not gain you a lot, then prosecuting the individual is not in the public interest.
However it does not mean the evidence wasn't available and it wasn't an option.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No Lucy. I disagree. I never took a prosecution based on publicity alone or becuase it was a Blue Chip company. In fact it would never be an either / or situation anyway. The cost of the PR never came into it. I often ran several PR's at the same time. I have prosecuted an individual. If anything that was seen as being a high profile case because prosecuting the individual is relatively rare.
I reiterate that failing to issue a PTW properly does not in itself lead to the accident. It would also require unsafe systems of work. PTW is just a mg't system and prosecuting the individual would only happen if everything else was as it should be. Which doesn't happen very often.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ClaireL - at risk of being pedantic - I was not suggesting that a PtW was a legal requirement that could be used as basis of a "breach" of law. You couldn't be charged with not having one... However, not having one is surely the "evidence" that is used to support and justify a charge under legislation?
Thus: Well Ops (UK) Limited: Charged under sec3(1): Summary notes state that work "...carried out without any formal written instructions, permit to work or risk assessment."
Eco-Oil Ltd: Charged under sec2(1): Summary states "..failing to implement a system of permits to work."
Now I accept that the above firms have been charged under the HaSaW Act but seems to me that it was all down to lack of a PtW .. Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
PTW has no basis in law. Breaches of Statutory Provisions may give rise to prosecution - not failure to prepare a PTW.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It seems to me that many of the posts are actually singing from much the same hymn sheet. It also seems to me that in the absence of a definition within HASAWA, that a “..system of work..” under S2(2)(a) might reasonably include a SSOW, PTW or whatever might be the normally accepted ‘systems’ for safety in use within any particular industry. In that respect I think that a failure to prepare a suitable PTW might well be the basis for a prosecution of a breach of the same.
Of course it is not only breaches of ‘Statutory Provisions’ that give rise to the potential for prosecution!
The bottom line is that the example that ‘Red’ was looking for, is probably as elusive as ever.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
With Red, I too would be interested if there were instances where, in arriving at a prosecution, the failure to have or use properly a Permit To Work system was part of the evidence against the accused.
For certain jobs/tasks a PtW is regarded as best practice. Yet I can find no common ACoP that mentions 'permit', and the only HSG I know of with 'permit' guidance is HSG250.
I'm sure most here know:
ACoPs have legal status, and they say something like ACoP 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 ...... You may use alternative methods to those in the Code in order to comply with the law, but the Code has a special legal status. If you are prosecuted for breach of safety law, and it is proved that you did not follow the advice in 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.
HSGs, however, do not have the same staus and say something like, following this guidance is not compulsory and you are free to take other action. If you do follow the guidance you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law..... inspectors seek to secure compliance with the law and may refer to this guidance as illustrating good practice.
That is quite different, so Red's quest may be a long one.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnM: I presume your posting was directed at my response... I think I ws trying to say much the sme as you:
Prosecution: For breach of HaSaW Act: Evidence: Lack of safe system of work, PtW etc
To me the two go hand in hand, one can not exist without the other.. of course if there had been a (suitable and satisfactory) PtW there may not have been an accident to give rise to the prosecution! I was given the analogy:
Prosecution: Road Traffic Act: Evidence: Failure to obey para x of Highway Code
But even if, as JohnW says, permits are not mentioend in an ACoP surely the fact that few if any safety professionals would deny their value it is therefore the case that they would be regarded as valid part of a safe system of work?
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Andy, thanks. My 'search' of PDFs didn't work :o( and I see now 'permit' is also mentioned in L138 and the OBVIOUS one L101 Confined Spaces! I agree with Phil, PtW is a way of securing a safe system of work, it ensures supervision, documented etc. JohnW
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Dear all
I have read all of your comments with interest and just want to say thank you to everyone who has taken the time to search for an example.
Thankyou
Red
|
|
|
|
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.