I'm just reading the case details of Richard Golding who was sentenced to 9 months in prison for his part in the death of a construction worker on whom an excavation collapsed on top of.

Briefly reading the details it seems that his documentation (RAMS) were OK, but that he failed to stop work being carried out, during a contractual site visit, 9 days prior to the excavation collapsing.

How many times have we as H&S people stopped work despite being under enormous pressure not to?

This case certainly focuses the mind, the Construction Manager got 3 years 3 months btw!

He worked for a H&S consultancy; All Day Safety Services Ltd.

Section 7 HSAW

Presumably he was specifically contracted to conduct an inspection, was aware of the problem, and failed to record or communicate the unsafe excavation (act or omission). CDM 2007 Regulation 5 (2) would be equally valid.
In either case, the legal duty would be to bring the matter to the attention of the employer in control, not "stop the work".

Golding had pleaded not guilty to failure of an employee to take reasonable care for the health and safety of others, contrary to sections 7(1) and 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

http://content.met.polic...0028221223/1257246745756

We discussed this case back in Dec http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...spx?g=posts&t=114497

The thread rather got diverted onto the matter of competence but I did post some more factual links at that time.

copy of my post follows.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/ne...ws/anghel_milosavlevici/
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk...wsgallery/?news_id=39148

"The court clearly decided that, on the facts of the case, the ‘safety consultant’ did have a clear role within the company that included site inspection and the authority to stop works. Indeed in his evidence he claims that he didn’t see it because the trenches were covered with boards when he visited! That suggests that he recognised his responsibility for such matters.

He should have seen the unsafe conditions and acted; he didn’t. The evidence from other employees as to the on-going and unsafe state of works on site is more telling and no doubt formed a large part of the judgement against the Director.

There is nothing that I have read that suggests that either of the men did not know how to do the work safely. Therefore, I am going to suggest that this has little to do with ‘competence’ per se. It seems to me more a case of wilful neglect. "

p48

At the end of the day he may well have said the same thing as FS101 says above but his barrister may not have been as good as the other...sometimes that is all it boils down to.

You are looking for a black and white 'he did it because' you probably won't find that. It is really only about what he could prove on the day...

Here's one for you all...if you can't speak/read/write the language of the client your are advising and his documents are in his native language can you be 100% that his documents comply with the requirements?

I am not talking about a UK company who employs non-English speakers, I am talking about a foreign company working in UK being advised by a UK based English Speaking (Only) Safety consultant.