Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15 October 1999

Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Le Ruez and Le Brocq

AG

v

Stansell QVC Ltd

1 count of:contravening Article 21 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, as amended, by failing to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that persons not in its employment, but who might be affected thereby, were not exposed to risks to their safety.

Plea: Facts admitted

Details of Offence:

Stansells QVC Limited were the main contractors for the redevelopment of the Opera House and had ultimate responsibility for ensuring that adequate safety measures were in place prior to work being carried out by employees of a sub-contractor. The roof to the "old plant room" contained a roof light which was not protected (either by means of guard rails or a wooden covering) to prevent persons falling through it. Mr Murphy (employee of sub-contractor) was working on the roof area carrying buckets of concrete to fill concrete cap stones which were being formed in the "Gods" area of the Opera House. Mr Murphy had to walk around and over steels and other obstacles and was taking care because he had noted that the skylight was not protected. After two or three buckets he decided to move some scaffold boards and in attempting to move a "rolling ladder" fell through the roof light. The total distance between the underside roof level to the floor level in the old plant room was approximately 10ft 6¾ ins, although Mr Murphy fell onto a table, (a distance of approximately 7ft). He sustained fractures to L1 to L4 of his spine, and developed Dupuytren’s disease in the little finger of his left hand. Mr Murphy unable to work since the date of the accident, and at date of sentencing it was not known whether he would recover from his injuries to be able to return to employment in the future. Safe system of work required that the roof light be protected by suitable guard rails or suitable covering.

Details of Mitigation:

Extensive mitigation available. Prompt admission of responsibility. Incident arose as a result of an oversight. Plea of guilty. Immediate steps taken to remedy the defect. Excellent safety record and training record in relation to safety issues. Fully co-operative with the investigation. Company embarrassed by failure of its safety procedures. Both of the previous two convictions in 1995 and 1997 (see below) arose as a result of unusual activity on the part of sub-contractors not forseen or known by Stansells. Stansells effectively first offender.

Previous Convictions:

Two infractions of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 which arose in peculiar circumstances. (See Jersey Unreported 1 September 1995, and Unreported Judgment 3 October 1997) Stansells treated as first offender for this infraction.

Conclusions: £10,000 fine; £2,500 costs.

Sentence and observations of Court:

£10,000 with £2,500 costs, payable within 14 days. Fines for Health and Safety infractions have been far too low. Court adopts principles set out in R -v- F Howe & Sons Engineers Limited, C.A. [1999] 2 All ER 249 and cited passage at page 253, letter B " the objective of prosecutions for health and safety offences is to achieve a safe environment for those who work there and for other members of the public who may be affected. A fine needs to be large enough to bring that message home where the defendant is a company, not only to those who manage it, but also to its shareholders"

P. Matthews, Crown Advocate

Advocate P de C Mourant for the Accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: The facts of this case are not in dispute; when the work site was prepared a member of Stansell’s site management team was not aware of the roof light, although he was in fact supervising the work.

Roof lights - as we were shown in Court this morning - are made of very fragile material, and they must necessarily be protected. Mr Murphy, the seriously injured workman, saw the roof light and was careful because of it, according to his statement. But in the intense activity on the roof with obstacles such as the rolling ladder, he decided to clear a path for himself, and this dreadful accident happened as he inadvertently fell through the roof light.

This case post-dates the case of AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited. Jersey Unreported ( 28 November 1977 ), when warnings have been given loud and clear that fines would be substantially increased. Crown Advocate Matthews has taken us through all relevant cases, and as was said by Scott Baker, J, in the leading English Court of Appeal case R -v- Howe & Son (Engineers) Limited. [1999], 1 All ER at page 253. CA

Those are the thoughts that were expressed by this Court over a period of time up to and including AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited.

We understand that Stansells is owned by an English plc, and we have no reason to doubt that it has substantial assets. At page 255, the English Court of Appeal went on to say this - and these are words with which we must agree:

Of course, we must add that the reason for imposing a large fine is to encourage other workers. Stansells is clearly a very well organised firm with an excellent safety record, and we say that even taking into account the two previous convictions which are, in our view, entirely distinguishable. The firm has a system for ensuring that employees report back anything untoward that they find and once this accident occurred it must be said that Stansells immediately resolved to rectify this particular problem, and we are quite certain that it will not happen again.

That, of course, is of little comfort to Mr Murphy, and in the circumstances, despite Mr Mourant’s strenuous and useful plea in mitigation, we are going to fine the company, in accordance with the conclusions of the Crown, £10,000, with £2,500 costs, and that is to be paid within fourteen days.

Authorities

A.G -v- Leaders Health Foods Limited. (14^th October, 1994) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Jersey New Waterworks Company Limited (28 November 1997) Jersey Unreported. [1997.214]

AG -v- New Lyn Apartments (12 December 1997) Jersey Unreported. [1997.224]

AG -v- Ashfield Builders Limited (20 February 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.036]

AG -v- Hacquoil & Cook (1 May 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.090]

AG -v- Cowley Farm Limited (7 August 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.168]

AG -v- Regal Construction (Jersey) Limited (21 August 1998) Jersey [1998.178]Unreported.

R -v- F. Howe & Son (Engineers) Limited, [1999], 1 All ER 253/255 CA

R -v- Rollco Screw & Rivet Company Limited (1999) TLR 319

AG -v- Stansells QVC Limited (1 September 1995) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Stansells QVC Limited (3 October 1997) Jersey Unreported.