Posted By IT
Just checked the HSE data base for recent prosecutions.

A third party (member of the public) involved in a fatality as a result of the company’s operation and the comapny was fined 1750 pounds.

How does this discourage other companies from doing the same thing?

The fatality was as a result of work on roads and in Scotland

Crazy message from the legal system

IT

Posted By Jerry Lucey
I totally agree IT and Jonathon that such a small fine appears to belittle the cost of a human life, however a sucessful prosecution in this case may be significant as it opens the door for a civil claim by the deceased person's relatives where the breach of statutory duty has already been proved.

The Book of Quantum sets the amount that should be awarded in civil cases where a personal injury has been sustained.

Posted By IT
Jonathan,

I understand the prosecutions issue ,what i do not understand is how an Organisation that has been found guilty of killing a third party ,may be fined a nominal amount by a legal system after being found guilty,when organisations who have breeched legistalion without killling someone have been fined over 10 thousand or more.( Before being flamed, I understand propitiate fines by size of business etc. )

a simple view of this message

Break the law and get fined more than if someone who is not an employee is killed , it simply sends the wrong message and encourages corporate risk taking.

Posted By kanta
I agree.I thought the minimum fine was £20,000 if the employer/employee was liable. Well that is was HSE tell us isn't it ???.

I don't think the investigation was not thorough enough.

Posted By IT
I understand the issue of innocent until proven guilty and setting aside the fatality as part of the procedures of the legal system, what I do not understand is that once found to have contributed to the death of a third party is the fine.

I was called as an expert for a coronial inquiry where a driver was involved and 3 people lost there lives, the company was fined £35000.00, the supervisor £2000.00 and the driver £700.00.

I believe outcomes like the one in Scotland only demonstrate that we as a society accept that business can take risks with others and it is significant savings, if I took the emotional high ground and asked what if it was my wife and children, setting aside the emotional issues, the company was found guilty and then a ridiculous fine was imposed by the system.

It does send the wrong message.

Bill,

A great debate on the HASWA whether it is a reverse legislation that is guilty till proved innocent

IT

Merry Christmas to all and a safe new year.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Of what relevance is this ?
The company was fined, therefore it had committed some offence and had been penalised for it.
The amount is largely irrelevant as well, too much and it would not have been paid whilst too little sends the wrong "message"
Too high a fine and the company rapidly disappears.
The main injustice is that large well-established companies get fines in the millions while in small companies get wound-up and the directors/owners go on holiday to foreign lands.
And it is "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"
Anyone seriously thinking that justice would be served by assuming guilt until proof of innocence is obviously living in cloud cuckoo land, or is a politician.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
I prefer to call it the real world, not CC land.
Small companies can disappear and re-appear with very little effort....they're famed for it in the real world. Indeed, one might even say that the whole system is made for legislation avoidance....a bit like tax really.
Ask anyone who has received an employment tribunal award only for the company to go down the pan.
Maybe ask the organisation famed for killing members of the public....the police service.

Posted By Patrick Burns CMIOSH, - SpDipEM - MIQA
Hi IT

I agree that the level of punishment in this case was particularly low. However, we do not know all the circumstances and findings from the investigation. You should also be aware that the HSE or Police do not prosecute in Scotland. This is left to the Procurator Fiscal who will decide whether a report sent to him/her is worthy of prosecution before submitting it through the legal process. It is the Procurator Fiscal who takes the case forward having taken in all the evidence. The case will initially go to the Sheriff Court and if indicted to the High Court of Judiciary for sentencing.

I am not sure of the specific case you relate to but I remember an accident about two years ago that involved family members being the Manager and son suffering a fatality whilst replacing lamp posts on the main road. If this was the case this may have been taken into account with all the other factors when sentencing was imposed.

Posted By John Lewis
If, as may be the case, the company were carrying out road surfacing work then there is also an element of contractor control involved here, local authority for example. Perhaps all those of us with any influence over contractor selection should be looking at ourselves and consider what level of responsibility we might be carrying when things like this go wrong.

Many larger companys already carry out thorough checks of contractors before employing them, as indeed they are compelled to. In my experience as a Facilities Manager it is often better to have a small group of contractors you trust, than a new set for each job because the accountants demand 3 quotes from different people each time a job arises.

Rubbish contractors have no place working for any business, large or small. They invariably cost more in the long run even if it is not on the initial quotation.

As Safety Professionals we need to be putting across this message to our employers as well.

Best Regards John