IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Gleision: Malcolm Fyfield and MNS Mining not guilty
Rank: Forum user 
|
x4 miners killed at work in 2011 + failed prosecution of mine manager + employer http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-27923572This was high publicity case, I'm sure brought before the courts by HSE etc after a high publicity tragic incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Very tragic case - its not clear from the article but if the mine owners were charged with manslaughter or corporate manslaughter it would be the police/crown prosecution service who would take the case not the HSE. Surprised no H&S offences were mentioned would expect them to run along side but is their another case to follow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
From the on-going news reports that I followed (in-part) over the last few months - the HSE were the prime enforcing authority / experts in the case, i.e. they guided the police / CPS.
My non-H&S friends that I spoke to last night were surprised that where 4 people were killed (at work) - there was no-one held accountable. Although a member of IOSH, I rarely quote the legal aspect of our work as the reason why we should do what we do - since managers with an ounce of common sense can work out the odds of personal prosecution and this case will reinforce that behaviour - financial benefits (+some moral) are the prime drivers in our line of business
I have sympathy with the families and the manager, who was also in the mine at the time of the explosion - many people were affected by the tragedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That was my point Evans HSE are witnesses not the people bringing the case - sometimes the H&S case can run along side. Do a search you will find examples where the manslaughter case has failed but people/companies have been found guilty of H&S section 2/3 etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This was a trial for common law gross negligence manslaughter against individuals of the mining company - not a health safety related prosecution. In theory an indictment could follow for corporate manslaughter (very unlikely) and/or other health and safety offences.
The HSE would normally conduct the investigation, the evidence would then be used in court by the CPS as part of the prosecution evidence.
In a Corporate Manslaughter case other health and safety charges can be included by the prosecution. Not so for gross negligence manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It is unlikely that any further charges will be brought as the evidence is in the public domain and there would not be a fair trial. If charges were to be brought under HSW, they would have been included. It would be unfait to have a "second go".
It is common practice not to include H&S charges alongside manslaughter, especially individuals, although there are exceptions. The CPS feel that it can detract from the more serious charge. Some CPS barristers have suggested to me that it gives the jury an easy option to go for the lesser charge so they don't like using both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Surely this was a "dual" prosecution?
Gross neg manslaughter against the mine manager and Corp Manslaughter against the company?
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes - but not sure what point you are trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Gleision: Malcolm Fyfield and MNS Mining not guilty
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.