Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
YJHR  
#1 Posted : 07 November 2021 00:34:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
YJHR

Good evening all, Hope you’re well. I am looking to get some insight into HSE prosecutions having recently read a number of press releases available here: https://press.hse.gov.uk/ My question is: Are companies prosecuted solely under HSWA 1974 even where they are in contravention of other regulations? And if so, why? Is it due to Section 2 of HSWA 1974 being an appropriate all encompassing duty? For example - the company listed in this article here was prosecuted under HSWA 1974 S2 although the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 exist (https://press.hse.gov.uk/2021/10/29/company-prosecuted-for-failing-to-control-risks-to-employees-using-vibrating-tools/). Furthermore, if a company has illustrated they have not risk assessed the exposure to certain risks (such as vibration) why do we not see more prosecutions under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 3? Thanks in advance!
peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 07 November 2021 11:25:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi HJYR

What you don't usually see in HSE press releases is any information about any plea bargains that have taken place before a conviction (on occasions even during a trial).

So, HSE might institute a case alleging breach of HSWA Section 2(1) and perhaps 3(1) along with a charge under the Management Regs (for risk assessment) and may be more as well.

Then, perhaps HSE sit down with the defence who offer to plead guilty to the charge under Section 2(1) if other charges are dropped.

There is also the issue that HSE may sometimes see weaknesses in the scope of subsidiary legislation. If you look at the current and historic prosecutions databases by "Advanced Search" for BREACHES at www.hse.gov.uk/prosecutions you will find VERY few cases under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations against Clients, and fewer still against Designers and Principal Designers (or the predecessors to the PD).

But in recent years HSE has used HSWA Section 3(1) against Clients at least as often as it has prosecuted this duty holder under CDM. However it is difficult to establish numbers due to the lack of narrative on most cases on the HSE prosecutions database.

There is also the problem that sometimes what HSE say in its press releases may not match what the defendant has actually pleaded guilty to!

As example, I was defence expert witness in a case following a fatality where someone had fallen. The Judge ordered a Joint Experts' Report meaning that prosecution and defence experts sit down to do a report setting out areas of agreement and disagreement.

In this case, we agreed that we had seen the training certificate for the victim and that the relevant training would include a half day module on the use of fall arrest equipment. We also agreed that the method statement for the work being done was substantially sound*. We agreed that it was impossible to say how far the victim had fallen.

*Nobody will ever agree on what constitutes the perfect method statement [particularly when they have the benefit of hindsight after an incident]! "Substantially sound" was our compromise form of wording.

So far, so good. Guilty plea but on a scale of guilt, not that guilty and the penalty imposed reflected that. But in the subsequent press release HSE asserted that the risk assessment was inadequate, the deceased had not been trained, had not been trained in the use of fall arrest and that they had fallen 16-18m [it was probably about half that - quite enough to kill] - there is no practical yet effective recourse if HSE publish something so misleading.

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Kate on 07/11/2021(UTC), aud on 11/11/2021(UTC)
stevedm  
#3 Posted : 08 November 2021 08:57:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

The law moves in misterious ways...well almost...if yu wanted the detail under the press release you are better looking at the prosecutions databse...

This is a link to an exampke Working at Height prosecution that was probabaly a press release saying HSWA S2..

https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions/breach/breach_details.asp?SF=BID&SV=4670181001

Corporate communications and the HSE fall foul of this as does any other organisation don't always give details...

HSSnail  
#4 Posted : 08 November 2021 09:08:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

YJHR – I think a lot still goes back to the days when fines were higher for HASAW than regulations. Peter gives a good explanation, but a lot also depends on the inspector and the case.

The last case I took before leaving my inspector role was against a small electrical contractor who managed to give a young (under18) apprentice and 2 electric shocks due to poor planning, The lad needed a small skin graft on his hand.

It was clear we were not going to get a big fine as the company was entering administration so after discussion with his solicitor we dropped some of the offences and he pleaded guilty to reg 19 of the management regs – which I felt was the most important message to get out to other employers. It did not really seem in “the public interest” to fight the other potential charges in court.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.