ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
7 August 1998
Before: F C Hamon Esq Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Potter and Le Brocq
AG -v- Cowley Farm Limited
1 count of: contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health & Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by failing to provide a system of work for an employee which was, as far as reasonably practicable, safe and without risk to health.
Plea: Facts admitted.
Details of Offence:
Defendant company ran a dairy farm business and was the owner of a tower silo used for storing maize silage. A silo unloader machine suspended on a cable from the top of the tower was used to remove silage. (The machine operates by being driven around the inside of the tower by drive wheels which sit on top of the silage. Two contra-rotating augers (corkscrews), which cut the top surface of the silage as they rotate, then feed the silage into a central blower unit where it is blown via a tube to a discharge chute located on the side of tower silo]. The unloader machine would occasionally dig itself into the silage and cease rotating.
An employee entered the tower whilst the electricity supply to the machine was switched on in an effort to unjam the machine. His right leg got caught by one of the augers which resulted in a traumatic partial amputation of the employee’s right leg below the knee.
The employee was then taken to hospital and his right leg was amputated beneath the knee. The company failed to provide a safe system of work preventing an employee from entering the tower silo whilst the silo unloader was in operation. A safe system of work would require the electricity supply to the silo unloader machine to be physically switched off in the shed situated at the rear of the tower silo before any person entered the silo tower with supply being resumed only once the person had exited from the tower and had returned to the shed. In addition the electricity supply would need to be physically "locked off" by means of a padlock and key to ensure that it could not be inadvertently switched on by another whilst a person was in the tower silo.
Details of Mitigation:
Infraction admitted. Company did not seek to redirect blame on the basis that the employee was on a frolic of his own. The company was a small concern employing three or four persons. No other tower silo in Jersey and no other tower silo in England of the type used at Cowley Farm. Employee had been operating the silo unloading machine without incident for some 17 years prior to the accident. Good safety record and no reports of any incidents at the farm in the files at the Health and Safety Inspectorate. Full co-operation with official investigation into the accident and all recommendations made by Health and Safety Inspectorate will be put into place before the unloader machine is operated. Company taking other positive steps to ensure that it complies with the duties under the Health and Safety at Work Law. Genuine remorse expressed by beneficial owner of the company. The employee still remained living in tied accommodation rent free and employer would give sympathetic consideration to re-employing him when he had recovered from his injuries.
Previous Convictions: None.
Conclusions:
5,000 fine, £1,000 costs.
First case since warnings of higher fines for health and safety infraction. Conclusions adjusted to reflect Court’s warnings and mitigation in the case.
Sentence & Observations of Court:
£4,000 fine; £1,000 costs.
The law is there to protect employees. Fact that the employee had operated the machine without incident for 17 years previously noted, however, the procedure which was employed was not proper procedure. Satisfied that the expressions of remorse in this case were genuine and this is an exceptional case.
P Matthews Esq Crown Advocate
Advocate J G P Wheeler for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The accident that occurred to Mr Greenfield caused injury to his right leg below the knee.
Whilst it is true that he entered the tower silo without turning the electricity off, he clearly felt that he was following the correct procedure in freeing the machine in the way that he did. The procedure that he followed had worked before, but it was not the correct procedure. A proper system would have required the electricity supply to the silo unloader machine to be physically locked off before any person entered the silo tower, and only turned on when the silo tower was vacated.
The law is there to protect employees; the potential for serious injury, or even death should have been made apparent to anyone entering the tower while the electricity was still switched on. But as Mr Wheeler has said, we have to recall that Mr Greenfield has operated the silo unloader machine for seventeen years without injury The company is small; it has no convictions recorded against it, and it has co-operated fully and taken immediate steps to rectify the situation.
We have had regard to the previous cases cited, and to the words of the Court that fines in the past have been far too low, we agree that the law has to bite in order to make employers understand their very real duty towards the safety of those that they employ, and it might be said that remorse after the event is easily expressed, but we think that in this case the facts are exceptional and the remorse is perfectly genuine.
For those reasons we are prepared to reduce the conclusions of the Crown, and impose a fine of £4,000 with costs of £1,000.
Authorities
A.G -v- Leaders Health Foods, Ltd (14th October, 1994) Jersey Unreported.
A.G -v- J.N.W.W. (28th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported. [1997.214]
A.G -v- New Lyn Apartments, Ltd (12th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported. [1997.224]
A.G -v- Ashfield Builders Ltd (20th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.036]
A.G -v- Hacquoil & Cook Ltd (1st May, 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.090]