Sentencing General Health and Safety
Case: Environment agency -v- D Court: Dewsbury Magistrates Court
Date: 19.03.2007 Judge: District Judge Bennett
Plea: Guilty plea on day of Trial Total Sentence: £10,000 fine (reduced to £7000 on appeal)
Summary.
The defendant company was convicted of depositing non hazardous controlled waste on site not licensed for the same. The defendant used an intermediary company (not charged) and did not reasonably ascertain that the intermediary would be dumping the waste appropriately.
Aggravating Features: Previous Conviction for a like offence, Share-holder was co-accused and he owned the land
Mitigating Features: Only 2 deposits made, waste was non-hazardous, defendant paid for the 'clean-up'
Contributed by: Alun Jones, Barrister, St. Pauls Chambers.
Case: Brent -v- Popat & Popat Court:Harrow Crown Court
Date:16.02.07 Judge:HHJ Barrington Black
Statute:Section 5 Explosives Act 1987, Section 33(3)(b)(i) Health and Safety at Work Act1974 Manufacture and storage of explosives regulations 2005
Offence Description: Keeping gunpowder in an unauthorised place
Plea: Guilty Total Sentence: £37,500 in all and costs of £30,399. 3 Months to pay
Summary:
Retail premises had licence to sell fireworks to the public. Breaches included in the warehouse and storage in containers which were not closed/ locked in store.
Expert evidence as to licence oblihations under new MSER.
Issues relating to the distances of permitted storage from residential premises and the degree of risk generated by the low hazard type.
Substantial dispute as to the corrective action taken by Trading Standards, as large consignment of fireworks removed overnight, and stored for over 12 months in faciliites which were intended for short term solution. Prosecution claim for costs of approximately £200,000.
Aggravating Features: Risk of substantial explosion to residential areas Earlier enforcement visits.
Mitigating Features: Complex change in regulations meant that there was uncertainty as to precise obligations in these circumstances.
Warehousing occured as suppliers delivered larger consignments than anticipated Immediate corrective action to take fireworks to safe premises.
Cost of storage should have been only £30,000.
Contibuted by: Jeremy Barnett, Barrister St Pauls Chambers Solicitor:Fox Hayes
Case:HSE v Men Shun Fireworks Co Ltd and Run Guang Tan. Court: Leeds Crown Court
Date: 05.03.07 Judge: HHJ Stewart QC
Statute:
S2(1) and 33 1 (a) Health and Safety at Work act 1974. Failed as far as reasonably practicable to ensure safety of employment, and s3 (1) and 33(1)a non employees.Manufacture and Storeage of Fireworks and S 5 and 39 Explosives Act 1875, MSL Fire precautions ( workplace ) Regulations 1997
Offence Description: Failed to keep gunpowder in an authorised place, failed to undertake a proper risk assessment.
Plea: Guilty Total Sentence:Fines totalling £40k ( £20k on company, £20k on MD).Costs agreed at £50k. ( 6 months to pay)
Aggravating Features:
Huge amount of fireworks.
Premises would have failed an inspection on numerous grounds.
Commercial decision to use unlicenced premises.
Major importer of Fireworks from China.
Mitigating Features:
Plea of Guilty at first opportunity in Magistrates Court
Immediate Rectification
Defendants subcontracted logistics to company now in liquidation.
Fireworks still in protective packaging
Used for tempory storage only.
Low risk of explosion or accident
Case: HSE -v- Geoff Fielden Ltd Court:Derby Crown Court
Date: 09.07.07
Statute: Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Offence Description:Unsafe system of dismantling racking. 7 examples of variations of system
Plea:Guilty (at first available opportunity) Total Sentence: Fine of £42,500 and costs of £40k.To be paid at £7,500 per month, first payment in 2 months.
Summary:
The Defendant company manufactured soft furnishings. They installed pallet racking which had to be re configured from time to time. Various alterations were made using inappropriate equipment and methods. Risk assessments not recorded. Occasional climbing in the racking by employees prohibited by management. Accident to deceased outside summons date whilst climbing in racking. No finding made as to whether or not he was ‘on a frolic of his own’ on day of accident.
Aggravating Features:
Management inability to prevent climbing may have encouraged deceased to act as he did.
Mitigating Features:
Good record of HSE compliance, early plea of guilty, immediate corrective action taken.
Contributed by: Jeremy Barnett, Barrister, St Pauls Chambers
Solicitors: Cartwright King, Sheffield
Case Name: HSE v Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals Trust
Court: Oxford Magistrates
Date: 21.7.2008
Statute: s 3(1) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Offence: Failure to ensure safety of patient
Plea: guilty
Total Sentence: £8000 + costs of £2,286.15
Summary: In October 2007, an elderley lady who was due to leave hospital that day, took a bath where the temperature was approximately 55 degrees Celsius. She suffered burns to her body which required her to remain in hospital for a further 6 weeks.The bath was found to be one of 4 which did not have a thermostatic mixing valve (TMV).
Aggravating Features: No proper risk assessment for bathing No formal safety inspections of water temperature
Mitigating Features: plea of guilty immeidate remedial action to fit TMVs new review system implemented
Case Name: HSE v Schenker
Court: Basildon Crown Court
Date: 30.6.08
Statute: s2(1) and 3(1) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
5(1) Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Offence: failure to protect safety of employees and non employees failure to maintain work equipment in good working order
Plea: guilty
Total Sentence: £45,000 and costs £19,300
Summary: The company was using a faulty dock leveller to try to create a flat surface between the warehouse and the back of a lorry at a loading dock. As the leveller wasnt working an employee standing on the truck called to the truck driver to drive away. He thought the driver hadnt heard him, so he stuck his head out to shout. As he did so the driver reversed and crushed the employees head between the truck and the wall causing severe crush injuries.
Aggravating Features: serious injuries - unlikely to return to work inadequate risk assessment Mitigating Features: plea of guilty Maintenence company had responsibility for risk assessments
Reported: health and safety