Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Cummins [2001] JRC 92 (27 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_92.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 92

[New search] [Help]

2001/92

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27th April 2001

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Rumfitt and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

D.B. Cummins (Jersey) Ltd

2 counts of:

Contravening Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, by failing to ensure, insofar as was reasonably practicable that persons in its employment were not exposed thereby to risks to their safety (counts 1 and 2).

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The company failed to ensure that employees did not remove ties on scaffolding. All the ties were removed with the result that the scaffolding was left free-standing. It toppled over risking injury to employees. It then fell against neighbouring property causing debris to fall into neighbouring courtyard and risking injury to neighbours.

Details of Mitigation:

The company had been in operation for 27 years with no convictions; this was a one-off incident; company owner told employees not to remove ties and when he realised they had done so he went to the scaffolding company with the intention of requesting them to dismantle it but unfortunately the accident occurred whilst he was on his way. There were no actual injuries; the company had sincerely apologised.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	£5,000 fine.
Count 2:	£5,000 fine.
Costs:	£3,000. (Guilty plea only entered 2 weeks before planned trial).

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	£3,750 fine.
Count 2:	£3,750 fine.
Costs:	£3,000.

The Court repeated that it is extremely important that companies are fully aware of their duties. This case was quite unusual; it was an isolated incident; and the employees had failed to follow instructions.

Advocate S.E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate N. Benest for the Defendant Company.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. The Court repeats what it has said in a number of cases recently, namely that it is extremely important that companies should be fully aware of their duties under the Health and Safety legislation and that the level of fines imposed by the Court must be such as to bring home to them the importance of that duty.

2. However, we consider this to be a fairly unusual case. We accept Miss Benest's main submission which is that this was an isolated incident. This was not a case of a general failure of a system or of a lack of ensuring that a proper system was in place. What appears to have happened on this occasion was simply that the employees failed to do what they had been told to do by Mr. Cummins. The company has been in business for some 27 years and has an unblemished record. Fortuitously there were no injuries caused as a result of the incident.

3. In all the circumstances we feel able to reduce the conclusions. Stand up, please, Mr. Cummins. We fine the company £3,750 each on counts 1 and 2. In relation to costs: the fact is that additional costs were incurred by the not guilty plea and we think that the request for costs is reasonable; therefore you are ordered to pay the sum of £3,000 for these. We will allow you three months in which to pay.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Stansell QVC (15th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/176].

A.G. -v- D.A. Richardson, Ltd (7th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/59].

A.G. -v- Camerons, Ltd (24th November, 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/235].