http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...-ldn-2017.htm#?eban=rss- Man dies, company fined £300,pay costs of £200 and manager fined £1! What is the HSE telling us by publicising this court report on their website?

That is atrocious....I paid more than that to have a plumber fix a leak and redocrate my untility room...where are the courts coming from ????

Whilst Clariel is right in what she has said - I got a bigger parking ticket fine. I hope the prosecution council will appeal against this derogatory fine - At the end of the day a man went to work to earn a living and now he is DEAD because of a company's and individual's neglecting their statutory duties

Are we sure this wasn't a test case?

Smurf, I don't see why it should be as it is far from being a first. Anyway, what is this HSE comment all about...“I hope the conviction of Foxtel Ltd sends a clear message to other installation companies...' What clear message? The only 'clear message' I can see from the £1 fine is if you go into liquidation you will avoid a substantial fine!

Feel that I must comment on JohnJ's comment: - HSE do not bring prosecutions with any consideration of possible civil action - As far as I am aware the families of deceased or injured persons do not have much (any?) chance of influencing the HSE as regards the bringing of a prosecution - whilst civil cases for compensation may cite breach of statutory duty the case may be based on common law negligence alone - hence a successful prosecution for breach of statutory duty may not lead to automatic success in the civil courts. Notwithstanding the above there is no doubt that a successful prosecution is of great value in the bringing of a civil claim. And generally insurers wait for the conclusion of any prosecution before settling the civil claim. But it must be remembered that in the civil courts there will be a consideration of possible contributory negligence which could have effect of reducing the compensation paid. Phil

Technicaly you are correct but presumabably the HSE know they are putting ammunition into the guns they can't fire themselves and get some satisfaction vicariously.

No the HSE do not concern themselves with civil issues at all. The feelings of families does not influence the HSE decision to prosecute. Decisions are based on breach and public interest. Fatalities often result in prosecution because it ts often in the public interest. Not always though. Whilst the fine seems obviously poor the HSE's public response wiil be that the conviction was successful as they were found guilty in court and have a criminal conviction. Of course a fine is more satisfactory but the HSE don't know what the outcome of fines will be when they take a prosecution. That is purely the courts decision based on mitigating and aggravating factors. I can assure you that fine or no fine the company involved will be devastated by the death and being found to be guilty of causing or contributing to that death. When it comes down to it what difference does a fine make? They're guilty and they'll hopefully learn from that. They will certainly have to live with that on their consciences for the rest of their lives. Just becuase they are guilty doesn't mean they did it deliberately or that they don't care. Thats' not how it is from my expereince as an enforcer who has had to bee involved with companies post accident. Personally I don't like all this talk of 'at least it allows for a civil claim'. Someone's husband / father / son is dead. For me a civil claim would be the last thing on my mind.

Barnaby. Probably technically insufficiently worded. Probably prosecuted by virtue of Section 36 or 37 for causing the employer to be in breach of Section 2.

None of us who use this forum were at the court hearing about the bakery stepladder fall accident. Therefore, we don’t know what was said or shown during the hearing and how such information might have influenced the magistrates in deciding about the penalties. Also, though the accident and death occurred in 2009, we don’t know why the court case didn’t take place until this week, some 2 years later. The reports about the case which appear on different websites all seem to repeat the HSE press release. The HSE inspectors who investigated the accident found that the stepladder involved was “in very poor condition”, and took possession of it, perhaps for use as an exhibit during any subsequent prosecution. It’s a shame that apparently no photo is available of the stepladder to complement/reinforce the message which HSE evidently wish to spread about risk management and work at height. On a general note, though HSE’s remit does not include civil claims for compensation, its inspectors will be re aware that successful prosecutions under H&S (criminal) law regarding circumstances involving death or serious injury or death tend to be helpful to those pursuing related compensation claims under civil law, especially ones where persons with families to support have been killed or have their capacity to work impaired. Unless things have changed since I left HSE some years ago, there is some sort of agreement by which HSE inspectors can provide factual statements if requested to do so by lawyers pursuing claims for death or injury. Also inspectors are occasionally called to give evidence during court hearings about such claims. However, judging by the apparent infrequency of such occasions it is possible that the contents of factual statements might be helpful in the settling of claims without recourse to the courts. For example, during my 10 years with HSE I provided a fair number of factual statements, but was summoned only once to give evidence in court regarding a claim. Also, a factual statement from an inspector isn’t necessarily of advantage to a claimant, especially if significant contributory negligence is involved.

NigelB makes some very good points, for example about solicitors pursuing legitimate claims regarding cases of work-related injury, death and disease. As most such cases receive no publicity, the vast majority of people in the UK have no idea about what they involve. By contrast, a few compensation cases - with interesting circumstances or high newsworthy payouts receive considerable or even disproportionate media attention, and thus perpetuate a skewed impression about the compensation system. In addition, though most of us as forum users have a clear idea about the nature and roles of HSE, OS&H advisers, employers, insurers, police, etc, they can be a notable or complete mystery to many other people. For example, before interviewing an injured person in the course of investigations during my time with HSE, I usually had to explain what HSE was and that inspectors weren't acting on behalf of the person's employer or the employer's insurer. Also, I would explain the statement procedure and that the ensuing statement would not be given to the person's employer. Taking appropriate time and care with such explanations to put understandably anxious interviewees at ease almost certainly helped to make the interview/statement taking process more effective for me and the interviewees. At the end of such interviews, sometimes with badly injured persons who were in hospital and likely to be there for weeks or even months, I tended to ask the interviewees if they would be getting/seeking advice, say from a trade union or a solicitor if they weren't in a union. Either way, I would advise that if they wanted a copy of the statement I had taken, I could add the words "I wish to be provided with a copy of this statement" before they signed my handwritten copy. After the statement was typed, it was no problem to send a photocopy to the person who knew they could share it with a union rep or a solicitor. I can't recall how this practice evolved - perhaps it was gleaned from one or more experienced colleagues. Also, though it wasn't part of HSE procedure, my bosses must have known about it from reading the statements. Also senior bosses would have known from reading through and approving prosecution reports, but neither they nor my bosses ever complained. Anyhow, I hope the practice was of some help, especially in the case of persons who were not especially articulate and/or where the machinery or work systems involved were quite technical and not easy to explain to solicitors and others not familiar with them.

Just for clarity. I'm not suggesting that the HSE prosecution was aimed at giving the family a better chance of compensation or that compensation will have been the first though on the families mind. The successful prosecution will demonstrate that the company has failed in its duty of care and no insurance company will fight against this.

Well , I believe if the situation was known to the employer there could even be a case of corporate manslaughter . but the amount of fine makes no sense . Do UK courts value the life of someone so cheaply ?' There is no is point in prosecuting a company for corporate manslaughter if they have very little or no assets because the principal sanction is an unlimited fine in a Crown Court. Why companies are permitted to go into voluntary liquidation to avoid liability following a serious incident is a real concern. I suspect in many cases the unscrupulous director(s) start up another company in the same industry and premises. It is a scandal. Why the authorities use the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 so sparingly is another mystery? On many occasions the prosecuting authorities do not even request disqualification and the court will impose the sanction - see:, www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr597.htm It is possible that some of the more obscure prosecutions are to allow further prosecution of individuals, such as s37 or the aforementioned company director disqualification. A s37 offence can only be imposed if their is evidence that the company whom the individual represented was at fault.

Funnily enough, or peculiarly enough [your choice] while this country gets rid of inconvenient regularion [inconvenient to companies and employers] the Chinese seem to be moving in the opposite direction: http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/101123

Deregulation? Who said anything about deregulation? Have you considered working for the Daily Mail?

I'll do you a deal. I'll go on a course on how to recognise sarcastic prose if you go on a course on how to deliver sarcastic prose! ;-)

reken Don't know is the simple answer, but perhaps it is just normal HSE policy to provide the particulars of recent cases. Certainly nothing to shout about as far as I'm concerned. Why don't you ask them direct?

You'll have to forgive me. I'm practicing satire, as well as training for a career in politics. Being satirical is a political bonus, but being sarcastic is seen as shooting oneself in the foot. Consequently the sarcasm is disguised. Of course, shooting oneself in the foot is a problem with a career in health and safety, although wearing the correct footwear may mitigate the crime !