Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC188

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd October 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Euro Gardeners Limited

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant company was contracted to do gardening works on a property called Oakland Estate.  On 6^th February, 2007, that work involved cutting down branches of trees that obstructed the surrounding area.

The system of work used by the defendant company to remove the branches involved the use of a double-extension ladder (each ladder section being 4m in length), propped up against the trees to enable access to the branches, which were in turn trimmed using a Ryobi rear-handled chainsaw for cutting them.

Agostinho Vieira ("the victim"), who was using the chainsaw, had climbed up the ladder whilst it was footed by Rui De Freitas, Director of the defendant company.  The ladder was not physically tied to the tree and De Freitas continued to hold the ladder whilst the branch was being cut.

That particular branch was quite big and when cut it did not fall to the ground immediately, instead resting on a lower branch.  The victim leant to free the branch, and as it began to fall to the ground under its own weight, the main part of the branch 'sprang' back towards the victim and struck the top of the ladder, causing it to fall over.

De Freitas was unable to hold the ladder.  He subsequently said that he had been afraid that the branch was going to hit him on the head.

The victim fell to the ground, striking his head on a root at the base of the tree.  He was still holding onto the chainsaw which continued to run until De Freitas switched it off.

At the time of the accident no personal protective equipment was being worn or used by either of the persons involved with the work.

The victim landed on the left side of his face and head, fracturing the left orbit and left side of his skull.  He also suffered several minor abrasions.  He did not require surgical intervention and has subsequently made a full recovery.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea at earliest opportunity, breach not motivated by desire to cut costs, no long term injuries to victim, impact of fine on finances of relatively small company.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Costs: £1,000

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Costs: £1,000

Time to pay: 3 months.

Defendant company is largely a one-man company.

Since accident, proper precautions are taken, safety equipment was purchased and chainsaws are scarcely used.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant company.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        As the Court has stated on many occasions, employers have a high duty to protect the interests of their employees and to provide for them a safe system of work.  It is clear that generally speaking this defendant company is a responsible and properly run business, fulfilling all its obligations to society. 

2.        On this occasion, however, it failed in its duty and it is fortunate that more serious injury was not caused to the employee, Mr Vieira.  We accept that there are no aggravating features present in this case and that in mitigation the defendant company admitted the infraction at the first available opportunity.  After the event the defendant company has taken proper precautions and purchased safety equipment and has, furthermore, reviewed its working practices so that chainsaws are used less frequently and not in the circumstances which were the cause of this accident. 

3.        We have taken account of the cases to which the Crown Advocate has referred, namely AG v Camerons Limited [2000] JRC 235 and AG v PAR Development Limited [2007] JRC 061.  We agree with Defence Counsel that these cases can be distinguished by the factor that the defendant company is, essentially, a one-man business.  The fine must 'sting' in order to bring home to others the importance of complying with safety regulations, but we think that we can reduce the conclusions slightly to take account of the matters drawn to our attention by Defence Counsel.

4.        The defendant company will be fined £10,000 for the infraction and will pay £1,000 towards the cost of the Prosecution.

(Discussion on time to pay)

5.        The defendant company has 3 months to pay.

Authorities

AG v Camerons Limited [2000] JRC 235.

AG v PAR Development Limited [2007] JRC 061.