Rank: Forum user 
|
Seen this article yet? http://www.constructione...os-scaffold-horror-show/ Watch the video. Is a suspended prison sentence of 2 x 10 weeks suspended for 12mths a bit lenient? I haven't checked elsewhere to see if the Principal Contractor was also prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In my humble opinion, the sentence was far too lenient. He ignored the prohibition notice and did not cooperate with the investigation. Fine should have been much higher and the sentence not suspended and certainly not concurrent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Totally agree, a pathetic sentence for such disregard for the law. From what I can tell it was lucky no one was injured or worse. Surely, the PC should have taken some responsibility as well.
I was talking the other day to a young chap who was hit a few months back by a falling scaffold pole whilst delivering construction materials in a busy London street. So lucky he was not killed, the full force of the pole hit the roof of his lorry first and then hit him on the head. He is lucky to have survived, but does have some issues including a speech impediment. He asked me whether he should have been wearing a hard hat. I responded that it should not have been necessary on a public road as the pole could have hit a member of the public who would not have been wearing a hard hat. Interested to see how this case turns out in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If he was already the subject of a Prohibition Order, then yes, it appears VERY lenient. However, why were the scaffolders assembling that scaffold in that way not also charged? Anyone can see that type of scaffold assembly was not a structure that could be taken lightly.
They appeared to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hmmmm..
"She was so concerned for the safety of passers-by and workers on the fifteen metre high scaffold that *three* separate complaints including photographs and videos were passed to HSE"
Three.
Prison is costly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
That chap appears to be a nasty piece of work. Prison sentence thoroughly deserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Do bear in mind David that the assault charges were another hearing entirely and should have not have prejudiced the consistent application of health and safety law in this case.
The inconsistency in relation to WAHR compliance appears remarkable and surely a great cause for frustration among enforcers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sentencing per se seems to be very random; the case from Essex was in the Crown Court, whereas the London one was Magistrates Court. The date of the offence is relevant in terms of the applicability of legislation, but essentially the level of fines is now the same in both Courts, though I believe the CC still has greater custodial terms available. It's really down to the level of knowledge and understanding of H&S of the magistrates and the Judge. The Judge is likely to have far more than the magistrate. Take the recent cases of Jaguar/LandRover fined £30K after a death http://press.hse.gov.uk/...urt-over-halewood-death/and compare to Hugo Boss fined £1.2M for a child death http://www.thisisoxfords...1_2m_over_child_s_death/Does a Child death deserve such a greater penalty, or is the Jaguar/LR case too low?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Comparing those two cases I wonder if 'forseeability' comes into the decision on sentencing.
A very heavy mirror in the Hugo Boss shop - the judge said "it was a “miracle” the mirror had not fallen sooner" implying a very foreseeable accident, and he went on to say even an untrained eye could have spotted that the mirror posed a dangerous risk to staff and customers.
In the case of the JLR accident a hook snagged, less foreseeable?
Maybe. The JLR team did not do a specific risk assessment for the job being performed, and breached Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations but then they go on to say "it was accepted in court that the regulation breach was not causative of Mr Begley’s death".
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.