Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/126

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

31^st May 2001

The Attorney General

-v-

Country Marquees, Limited

Plea:    Facts admitted.

Details of Offence:

The defendant company had been engaged in erecting a large marquee on land at the Waterfront for the Millennium Village event.  With the approval of one of its directors on the site, an attempt was made to raise a steel frame weighing approximately 450 kilograms by means of the jib of a small crane on the back of a lorry.  The jib was positioned under the apex of the frame and raised.  Inevitably, the jib slid away from the frame which then fell, injuring one of the employees who suffered a broken ankle.  Had it not been for the fact that the lorry had broken the frame's fall to some extent, the injury to the employee would have been much worse.  The fact that the company had not taken the opportunity to send its employees on a training course provided by the manufacturers instructing them on the correct method of erecting the frame was an aggravating factor.

Details of Mitigation:

The infraction was admitted although the company could not claim that it had been co-operative with the Health and Safety Inspectorate with regard to its investigation into the accident.  The company had no record of any previous convictions; and it seemed unlikely at this stage that the employee would suffer any permanent injury although he was still undergoing treatment.  Particular stress was laid on the inability of the company to meet a large fine as it was trading at a loss and accounts were produced to substantiate this fact. 

Conclusions:

£9,000 fine; £2,500 costs.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The company had failed in its obligations.  It had missed the opportunity to obtain relevant training.  It adopted a "Heath Robinson" approach to erecting the structure.  It did not co-operate with  the Health and Safety Inspectorate.  As against that, the Court noted the available mitigation and in particular accepted that the company was not in a strong financial position and was not making a profit.  The company was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500.  It was given six months within which to pay these sums.

A.D. Robinson, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P.M. Livingstone for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.      In this case the defendant company failed to live up to its obligations under the law.  It did not take advantage of the opportunity given to it to receive training in the erection of this particular marquee which was of a size not generally in use in Jersey at that time.

2.      It then adopted what can only be described as a "Heath Robinson" approach.  It attempted to raise one of the metal frames of the marquee into position by means of pushing it up in an unsecured manner with a crane attached to a lorry.  Inevitably the frame slipped and fell down, breaking the ankle of one of the employees in the process.  Additionally, it has to be said that the company did not co-operate with the investigation in that, initially, it failed to disclose that the crane was being used at the time of the incident.

3.      The Court has said on previous occasions that fines for offences under the Health and Safety (Jersey) Law, 1989 must be sufficient to bring home to companies and their shareholders the need to comply with their obligations under the law.

4.      In mitigation, Mr. Livingstone has pointed to the fact that the company has no previous conviction under this law and, further, that the company had in fact erected a marquee larger than this on one occasion before this incident.  It had, on that occasion, used mechanical assistance to lift the marquee and indeed it has, apparently, raised this particular marquee on occasion since the accident by mechanical means.  The misjudgment in this case, it was said, was simply that the wrong machine was used because the crane was not high enough to be able to lift the metal frame into position.  The company has pleaded guilty and has accepted responsibility.

5.      In addition Mr. Livingstone referred to the financial position of the company and we have seen the accounts from which we accept that the company is not in a strong financial position and is at present not making a profit.

6.      In all, having regard to the nature of the risk of injury in this case and the nature of the particular breach of duty; and having regard to the financial position of the company, we think it right to reduce the conclusions.

7.      Stand up, please, Mr. Kelly.  The company is fined the sum of £5,000; together with £2,500 costs; and the Court will allow six months in which to pay.

Authorities

AG-v-DA Richardson Ltd (7^th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/59].

AG-v-E Farley & Son Ltd (14^th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/70].