Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/182

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

10^th August 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Regal Construction (Jersey) Ltd

 

 

2 counts of:	contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by failing to ensure, as far as possible, the health and safety at work of all its employees (counts 1 and 3);
2 counts of:	contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by failing, as an employer, to ensure, as far as possible, that persons not in its employment, who might be affected thereby, were not exposed to risks to their safety (counts 2 and 4).

 

[On 20^th July, 2001, the Defendant Company denied the facts on counts 3 and 4, which pleas were accepted by the Crown].

 

Plea:    Facts admitted on counts 1 and 2.         

 

Details of Offence:

Prosecution arose from unsafe working practice during demolition works.  The outgoing electricity supply had been disconnected but the incoming mains JEC electricity supply at 415 volts was live.  Demolition commenced by hand but the defendant company discovered a German bunker within the premises which required the assistance of an excavator to demolish it.  An employee reported seeing a flash coming from the electricity box which inter alia housed the mains incoming cable and which was secured on a granite wall.  The wall collapsed unexpectedly during excavation work.  The incoming mains supply cable was severely damaged and sparks and flashes were seen.  The JEC was called and the defendant was told to stop demolition works immediately but work was still continuing nearly two hours later when the Health and Safety Inspector arrived.  Work was then immediately stopped and the mains supply disconnected.  Had the live conductor struck the earthed metal work, it would have caused all the other metal work and cables connected to the distribution box to become electrically live at 240 volts.  No-one suffered any actual injury.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Prompt plea.  Good safety record, save for one previous conviction, below.  Long history of involvement in building trade.  The wall supporting the electricity box was not due to be demolished and its collapse was unexpected.  Subsequent to the accident the defendant took steps to alter its procedure when dealing with demolition.

 

Previous Convictions:

1998 fined a total of £4,000 together with £1,000 costs for failing to provide sufficient instruction and training to safety site foremen under the Health and Safety at Work Law.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	£8,000 fine;
Count 2:	£8,000 fine;
	£2,500 costs.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.J. Young for the Defendant Company.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This, in the view of the Court, is a serious breach of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, which could well have led to serious injuries being suffered by employees or by sub-contractors.

2.        There are a number of aggravating features.  First, on Friday, 19^th January, three days before the incident, the site foreman was told that one of the employees had seen a flash in the vicinity of the electricity box but, although an electrician was asked to attend, no urgent steps were taken to investigate.  The electrician did not attend yet the demolition work continued in the vicinity of the electricity box on the Monday and subsequently the wall holding the box collapsed.

3.        Secondly, notwithstanding the collapse of the wall and the fact that the foreman had called the Jersey Electricity Company to the scene, following the sparking and flashing, work continued within 3m. of the electricity box for nearly two hours before the arrival of the inspector from the Health and Safety Inspectorate.

4.        Thirdly, the defendant company has a previous conviction three years ago for breaches of the Health and Safety Law for which it was fined £6,000.  As against that, as urged by counsel for the defendant company, we entirely accept that the defendant company is an organisation which takes very seriously safety issues and takes all proper steps that it should for training its employees and sending them on safety courses.

5.        The Court reiterates what has been said on many previous occasions, namely that compliance with statutory obligations designed to safeguard the health and well-being of employees is of the greatest importance.

6.        The approach of the Court in recent years has been that higher fines should be imposed and we endorse again the words of the English Court of  Appeal in R-v-F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd (1999) 2 All ER 249, when the Court said:

"While it is impossible to lay down any tariff or to say that a fine should bear any specific relationship to the turnover or net profit of the defendant, since the objective of prosecutions for health and safety offences in the workplace 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."

7.        We have taken account also of the points made by defence counsel in relation to the totality factor; the point being made is that the two charges contain some overlap of statutory duty.  We take that into account and I have to state that the Court is divided as to whether the conclusions should be granted.  One Jurat would have placed greater weight upon the mitigating features of the case than the other.

8.        Having taken all the circumstances into consideration the Court, by a majority, grants the conclusions and the defendant company is accordingly fined £8,000 on each charge and is ordered to pay £2,500 costs.  The Court will allow the defendant company one week in which to pay the fines and costs.

Authorities

AG-v-Regal Construction (Jersey) Limited (21^st August, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Biggs (23^rd February, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Ashfield Builders Limited (20^th February, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Hotel de France (20^th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-E Farley & Son Ltd (14^th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

R-v-F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd (1999) 2 All ER 249