Posted By Dave Merchant The problem is that there remain many SIs without an ACOP (Work at Height, etc.) and so there's no other "public sector" position on best practice to use in the case. It wouldn't be good practice to measure against commercial guidance (from a trade body, etc.) as the defence can argue the policy has bias or only reflects one possible route to SSOW. The 'advantage' of HSE or LA guidance is it's intentionally written to be as vague and unbiased as possible, so can be used as a comparative measure no matter who the defendant is. 8.3(b) doesn't make following HSE guidance (or not) carry any implicit weight in law other than comparatively for a jury to form a decision on 'gross breach of duty'. This has always been the case - prosecution counsel can present expert testimony as to the 'typical' practices and policies in use, but failing to comply with such is not in itself an offence. A jury can't be expected to understand practices and guidance without them being presented, but 8.3(b) only requires them to weigh such evidence in their normal deliberations. Reading 19.1 you can see that it's possible to be found guilty under the Act as a discrete judgement (i.e. without necessarily breaching a specific H+S law), in which case guidance could be used to show that the defendant was generally in breach of their duties without highlighting a technical failing through a specific regulation.

Posted By Stephen D. Clarke Many thanks guys for your really helpful responses. Steve

Posted By Karen Todd When I do court reports, I do refer to things published in guidance (e.g. have referred to HS(G) 155 and 156 in a STF case) as I feel it is useful for Counsel to know this information. If you look here: http://www.weightmans.co...ristol_city_council.aspx in Point 4 of the Judgement, although in this case it was an ACOP rather than say, guidance that was referred to. Regards, KT