https://www.facebook.com...eo.php?v=730483013733675

Would section 8 apply in this case?

Do they have to be at work though?

Section 8 HSAW Act

Duty not to interfere with or misuse things provided pursuant to certain provisions..

No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions

People dont have to be at work for section 3......its all hypothetical I know but I was asked the question and it has got me digging!

The are are a few offences there, but as previously said they are not at work.
The fire extinguisher abuse goes some way to reinforce those who do not have them sited in public areas.

I hope they are all punished by the football Club, if it is football?

People do not realise that videos are recorded everywhere now and social media is ideal for Police forces, and in this case the Club where the film was taken.

If nothing else it should lead to the offenders being banned from football stadia.

I just sent the link to West Mids frs as a complaint from myself.

I will not be holding my breath but will post any response I receive.

There's some operational guidance for HSE inspectors in this link, which has a brief reference to Section 8:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/fo...199/130_8.htm#appendices

I stand corrected, s8 states 'any person' and not employee. I cannot recall a non-employee being prosecuted but will investigate further. Thanks Toe.

The Criminal Damage Act would surely be more fitting here as its defined as:

'A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence'.

I would argue conviction on such an offence would be more serious and have an greater affect on the individual if you use the measurement of the damage to their reputation and on their future employability compared with a Section 8 conviction.

I dare say a Public Order offence could be thrown in if the CPS could be bothered (which is doubtful!)

email received this morning, the link has been passed on to the fire safety department.

I stand corrected - useful learning.
I await a prosecution as there appears to be plenty of evidence? Or will it not be in the public interest?

I think you are all barking up the wrong tree looking for a Section 8 prosecution here?

Let's wait and see if the West Mids FRS do anything about it using their powers and see what they actually use to prosecute, if they do? (misuse of fire fighting equipment).

The other side of this could be a Police investigation into what could be a riot inside the football stadium and the criminal damage that took place.

Mssy in a word or three, I don't know. That's why I have suggested waiting to see if they do anything?

What would you do if still in fire safety and this happened in your patch?

s8 prosecutions are very rare even for employees, who are most likely to get prosecuted, so for members of the public I think it would be as rare as rocking horse...

I would advise that you re-read section 8 and the supporting information from the HSE to gain a "full understanding" yourself.

Care to explain?

'Care to explain'

HSWA only applies to those at work so does not apply here because these people were not at work and the 'controllers of the undertaking's' duties to the public in this case seems to have fulfilled the needs of the fire service so U could say that S:3 has been managed in this case - personally I would have better security* in place to support my duties under S:3 but that is just me [*and much much more of it]

It must be Friday…..

“..in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.” is the key.

A prosecution of a member of the public for misusing a fire extinguisher would only be possible under s8 if it could be proved that the extinguisher was “provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.”
The relevant statutory provisions are the existing provisions listed under schedule 1 of the HSW Act and any regulations made under the HSW Act.

As these fire extinguishers were provided to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, the HSW does not apply so S8 does not apply. (Which is why HSE can not deal with fire safety.)

The RRO places duties on specified people and there is no equivalent of s8 “No person…”

Assuming the miscreants were identified and taken to court then it would be for criminal damage or a public order offence as stated previously
Have a good weekend
Ian.

Trouble with Fridays is that you don’t want to put in too much detail.

Am I sure? Fairly but it is only my opinion. So I’m willing to stand corrected.

If the extinguisher is provided to comply with the RRFSO then because RRFSO is not one of the relevant statutory provisions, S8 does not apply to the misuse of the extinguisher.
But if, for example, an assessment under the DSEAR regulations required a fire extinguisher, then as DSEAR are made under the HSW Act – DSEAR is a relevant statutory provision and so S8 would apply.

In this case – to answer the post – S8 does not apply – in my opinion.

Full text of Section 8 is
“8 Duty not to interfere with or misuse things provided pursuant to certain provisions.
No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.”

The HSW Act defines certain phrases in S 53 (Interpretation) which I have copied below: -

“relevant statutory provisions” means –
a) the provisions of this part and of any health & safety regulations, and
b) the existing statutory provisions

“the existing statutory provisions” means the following provisions while and to the extent that they remain in force, namely the provisions of the Acts mentioned in schedule 1 which are specified in the third column of that schedule and of the regulations, orders or other instruments of a legislative character made or having effect under any provision so specified.

Article 25 or RRFSO lists the enforcing authorities and yes the HSE & LA are there, but only for certain specific activities/premises
Eg HSE – nuclear installations, construction etc
LA – sports grounds etc

Before the RRFSO it was the Fire Precautions Act and (I think) Fire certificates (special premises) Regs. Again this separated enforcement mainly to the Fire authority but to the HSE for certain hazardous installations.

So, as I understand it, fire matters in most premises are enforced by the local fire and rescue authority for the area. HSE and LA Inspectors will give advice if they see something of serious concern but cannot enforce the RRFSO in say an office or factory.

I assume the protocol for H&S Inspectors dealing with fire matters is the same as it was when I was a lad. If you saw something of “serious concern” then you had to pass the information to the fire authority “for whatever action the Fire Authority consider appropriate”.

Now I really ought to do some work….

Ray

Different opinions are fine.

The law is usually meant to be taken literally. If S8 did not have “in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions” at the end of the section then I would agree with you that it could cover anything provided for health & safety purposes. But because of that phrase it must include only those things which have been provided by that defined set of Acts and regulations.
Therefore you cannot be guilty of an offence of misuse if the item was not required under the relevant statutory provisions.

With regard to application of S8 to other acts etc you said:

“If you look at the paragraph you have copied under "the existing statutory provisions" it appears not to be exclusive '...and of the regulations, orders or other instruments of a legislative character made or having effect under any provision so specified.'

BTW, the RRFSO is and Order under health and safety law.”

The words “so specified” make it exclusive. The reference to regulations, orders etc “so specified” are those regs orders etc made under the Acts that are set out in Schedule 1 to the HSW Act.
I know the RRFSO is an Order, it says so in the title and it does deal with safety, but it was not made under S 15 of the HSW Act (Power of secretary of state to make regulations) or any of the Acts listed in Schedule 1. Therefore RRFSO is not a relevant statutory provision as defined in HSW Act.

I looked for extra info on the HSEs website - See http://www.hse.gov.uk/fo.../og/og-00015.htm#inspect
Scroll down the page and the operational guidance for inspectors states
“Warrants
The RR(FS)O and F(S)A are not Relevant Statutory Provisions of the HSWA.”

Sorry I didn’t make myself clearer in my explanation.

Regards
Ian

Section 4 Public Order Offence and maybe the mental health act as they are all clearly suffering from a mental disorder.