Well you have to admire their brass neck, look on their website http://www.baldwinscrane.../management-courses.html

Yes admire isn't the right word is it .......I meant in ironically

Interestingly this has not been widely reported for example by the Daily Mail, who only seem to be interested in stories knocking 'elf and safety' rather than showing the public what can happen if it is not correctly applied. Strange and sad world!

£700,000 fine. http://www.constructione...-700000-for-crane-death/

Toe From what I can gather it was a joint investigation between the Police, HSE and CPS, the latter would normally prosecute in a CM offence. I suspect because of the gravity of the offences it was decided to go for Corporate Manslaughter where the sanctions are normally higher for such an offence. There may not have been enough evidence on any one individual to support an indictment for gross negligent manslaughter. It was not just a case of faulty brakes on the said vehicle but other vehicles in the fleet. There were also other safety failings within the organisation which no doubt contributed to the decision to go for CM. There is still an opportunity I believe for the authorities to pursue individuals within the organisation, for example, s37 HSWA if they so choose.

Details of the charges: Baldwins Crane Hire Limited on the 15th day of August 2011 being an organisation, namely a corporation, because of the way in which the organisation's activities were managed or organised, caused the death of a person, namely Lindsay Easton, contrary to ##section 1## of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Baldwins Crane Hire Limited, between the 1st day of January 2010 and the 16th day of August 2011, being an employer within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, failed to discharge the duty imposed on it under ##Section 2## of the Act by failing to ensure so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of its employees including Lindsay Easton. Contrary to section 33(1)(a) of that Act. Baldwins Crane Hire Limited, between the 1st day of January 2010 and the 16th day of August 2011, being an employer within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, failed to discharge the duty imposed on it under ##Section 3## of the Act, by failing to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment who may be affected thereby were not thereby exposed to risks to their health and safety. Contrary to section 33(1)(a) of that Act. Full house. The civil litigation part proceeds. The crane was not on a public highway when the accident occurred.

It appears that the vehicle was on a public highway when the brakes failed. Your right, workplace fatality protocol do include Police and the HSE involvement. However, this is a fatality on the public highway. There is no workplace involved in the incident. As I see it, CM has absolutely nothing to do with HSE legislation it is a separate Act of Parliament enforced by the police and processed by the CPS (in England and Wales). The HSE are not expert in vehicles, the Police and DVSA are. I am aware of the details of the charge, I just don't understand them. Can someone explain the rational as to why there was HSE involvement and prosecution in this case when it ought to have been a full police matter? This case could have wider implications if the HSE are able to be involved and succeed in prosecutions of the results of a RTA.

With respect, I think you are getting confused with the different doctrines. CM is a stand alone offence, however the indictment could also include other h&s offences e.g. s2/3 HSWA. CM is a codified Act which has nothing to do with the 'controlling mind' doctrine (mens rea). The main test under section 1 is an organisation is guilty of an offence if in the way its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the deceased. A substantial part of the breach must have been in the way activities were managed by senior management. Again, a section 37 offence is a separate offence and is used against individual officers of the organisation, where it can be proved the organisation failed to comply with statutory provisions. I believe this offence can be invoked regardless of any other offences and convictions.

Pity there was insufficient evidence for an individual manslaughter offence. The civil award should be quite high as well (even higher than their 700K + 200K fine/costs) Cheapskates. A good life lost to skinflints.