The attached link highlights a rather strange case where a self-employed roofer was prosecuted for breaching s3(2) HSWA. It appears from the article the roofer was engaged in domestic work. There is a widely held view that domestic building work, save for the odd exception, is not covered by statute health and safety laws. However, assuming it is a domestic client it is an interesting case and presumably s3(1) would equally apply under similar circumstances?

The facts of the case are a bit basic and it is not clear if the deceased - a 'friend', is visiting or assisting the roofer. It is not so unusual for a self-employed worker in the building trade to cut corners by not having a SSoW on domestic work. What is unusual is the manner of the accident and the severity of the punishment. Interested to hear your views.

http://www.shponline.co....-for-friend-s-fatal-fall

Ray
I didn't expect you to raise this one unless you are seeing what it provokes.

I do not see any problem with this as the roofer was "contracted" to re-roof the garage and was a roofing contractor. In this case S3(2) was quite correct as he has to prevent harm to other people, including his friend who climbed up to see him, rather than getting involved with the work.
It was unfortunate that he had a stroke at that moment, but if the guarding had been better he may have survived by not falling to the floor.

Roly

Ron, presumably the post-mortem identified a stroke? To what extent the stroke caused the deceased to lose control and fall is an intersting aspect of this case. If the 'but for' test was applied, then clearly the stroke would not have been demeed a significant contributory factor.

Peter, thanks for your erudite comments. There are indeed a number of 'interesting' facts to this case, the method of work as criticised by the HSE is yet another which gives rise to some concern as you have rightly pointed out.

No one has mentioned the gravity of the sentence...

I thought the suspended 8 month sentence a bit harsh, especially when you consider the paltry sanctions handed out, including £1 fines for fatalities where there is arguably more culpability. That said, given the one-off nature of incident it is unlikely to invoke the suspended sentence. Of course, the real punishment as you have rightly identified is the loss of a friend.