Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi, I am trying to find a court case from a few years ago. I thought it was R v Cooper but I am not sure that is correct as after numerous searches i can't find anything relevant. Essentially, a H & S advisor/ consultant was fined after a trainee / new woodworker was injured from kickback / drawing in. The owner of the business had not had any risk assessments reviewed for two or three years however the judge found that the original risk assessments were insufficient or had omitted a significant risk hence leading to a fine of around £3k for the consultant. Can anyone tell me the correct citation or link to the article? I thought it was in SHP or IOSH magazine but can't find anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Is it this one? HSE Prosecution of Christopher Hooper
Christopher Hooper was a Health & Safety Consultant who prepared a risk assessment for a client on a spindle-moulding machine in February 2001. In February 2003 an employee of his client injured his hand whilst operating this machine. The HSE prosecuted him under section 36 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.
The Magistrates' Court was told that Mr Hooper's risk assessment of the machine fell significantly short of the standards required, contributing to the accident. Particularly, it failed to identify the danger of the machine snatching at pieces of wood. Although Mr Hooper had many years health and safety experience, he was not familiar with wood working machinery. Mr Hooper pleaded guilty, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £750 prosecution costs.
Discussed on the forum previously; https://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t65453-Health-and-safety-consultants
|
 1 user thanked tibs1uk for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
On the basis of the narrative givenby tibs, I wouldn't read too much into this case against Cooper. He pleaded guilty and so the evidence against him was not tested in Court. To prove the HSWA Section 36 case against him, the prosecution would have to prove that Mr Cooper's client had broken the law and that Mr Cooper was a substantial cause of the breach by his client. Which involves a lot of IFs, BUTs and MAYBEs. Remember that there are many reasons why defendants USUALLY plead guilty to prosecutions for health and safety offences and quite often the defendant might actually think they are NOT guilty or only a "bit" guilty. The cases that REALLY tell us about the boundaries of the law are the ones that go to trial and, particularly, those that go to appeals, so elevated to higher Courts. P
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
would agree with Peter, in my 30+ years as an inspector only ever tried to prosecute a consultant once because of his shoddy work which cost a chap his hand. Bartisters advice was taken and we were told that his contract with the company was so wolly not to waste the courts time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Many thanks, it was Hooper not Cooper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.