[2005]JRC042
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
8th April 2005
Before: |
Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Bullen and King. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Dean Philip Ackland
1 count of: |
Contravening Article 21(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989 by failing to ensure that persons not in his employment who might be affected thereby were not exposed to risks to their safety, as required by Article 5(1) of said Law (count 3). |
1 count of: |
Contravening Article 21(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1973 by failing to ensure against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by employees in the course of their employment (count 4). |
[On 18th February, 2005, the Crown accepted a denial of the facts in relation to counts 1 and 2].
Age: 35.
Plea: Facts admitted.
Details of Offence:
Defendant employed Mr Lopes on an ad hoc basis in connection with his roofing business. Mr Lopes was also the Defendant's friend. On the day of the accident, Mr Lopes had met up with the Defendant where the Defendant parked his van to see if there was any work available. The Defendant told him he had no work that day because it was raining. However, Mr Lopes accompanied the Defendant for the day because "he had nothing better to do". The two drove into town, where the Defendant intended to start preparing for carrying out repairs to a roof on Trinity House, Bath Street, St Helier when the weather was better. The Defendant decided to carry the necessary paint pots onto the roof for later use. Mr Lopes assisted him. Whilst on the rooftop, the Defendant started to untangle a hosepipe he had used the day before and which he had left lying on the roof. Uninvited, Mr Lopes elected to help the Defendant by taking the other end of the hosepipe. The Defendant had his back to Mr Lopes when he heard an exclamation and a thud. Mr Lopes had stepped back and fallen nearly 20 feet onto the roof below. He died of his extensive injuries later that night in hospital. It was accepted by the Crown that Mr Lopes was not an employee on the day of the accident but a 'volunteer'.
Details of Mitigation:
The Defendant was deeply distressed by the accident; he was subsequently unable to work for some 2½ months. At date of sentencing he was continuing to receive grief counselling. The Defendant submitted an Affidavit of Means indicating that he was overwhelmed with debt. The final blow was an accidental fire in his flat on 15th February 2005 in which he and his girlfriend lost virtually everything they owned. The contents of the flat were uninsured. The Defendant had befriended Mr Lopes some three or four years earlier, when they both worked together in a bar. When Mr Lopes became unemployed following health difficulties, the Defendant had found him accommodation and work and included him with his family at such times as Christmas. He was deeply distressed by the fatal accident. Several excellent personal references provided to Court.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
Count 3: |
£700 fine or 2 months' imprisonment in default of payment |
Count 4: |
£300 fine or 1 month imprisonment in default of payment |
No application for costs.
Individualised sentence, bearing in mind Defendant's inability to pay the substantial fine, which would normally be sought. The fine to be paid by monthly instalments, commencing not later than three months after date of sentence and to be completely paid within 24 months.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted "although without any enthusiasm at all". Court recognised Defendant's impecuniosity and that he had been greatly punished by the loss of his friend and employee.
Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.
Advocate N. Benest for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. Mr Ackland, we are going to grant the conclusions, although, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we are doing so without any enthusiasm at all. We think that the greater punishment that you have suffered is the loss of your colleague and friend and we take that very much into account as we are sure the Crown Advocate has done. But at the end of the day, a man has lost his life as a result of a failure to comply with building regulations which are designed to ensure the safety of employees and the safety of those who go up into high places and we must therefore punish you for the offences which you have committed.
2. The conclusions are granted and you are sentenced on charge 3 to a fine of £700 or in default, 2 months' imprisonment, and on charge 4 to £300 or in default, 1 month imprisonment consecutive, making a total fine of £1000 or in default of payment, 3 months' imprisonment and those fines must be paid within 24 months by monthly instalments to be agreed with the Viscount's Department.
Authorities
AG -v- Trio Construction Ltd. (5th February 1993) Jersey Unreported; [1993/21].
AG -v- Mann (20 October 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/194].
R -v- Chelmsford Crown Court ex p. Birchall [1989] 11 Cr. App. R (S) 510