Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC023

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

29^th January 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

AA Langlois Haulage Limited

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Company contracted with owner to demolish outbuilding.  Owner knew that interior of building had ceiling panels containing AIB but did not disseminate the information to company.  Company made no direct enquiry of owner regarding presence of asbestos and failed to obtain asbestos survey.  Two employees stripped out roof panels using claw bars and hammers disturbing approximately 690 square feet AIB panels.  Risk of inhalation of asbestos fibres exacerbated by employees working overhead. 

Details of Mitigation:

Prompt admission of guilt.  Aggrieved owner did not pass on information regarding presence of AIB.  Good character in context of 20-year business.  Remorse.  Company had quoted in January 2008 and identified possibility of asbestos in building and need for survey, but in April 2009 when work carried out, this was overlooked. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Costs £2,500

Total:  17,500.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Costs £2,500.

Total:  12,500 with 14 days in which to pay.

S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. D. James for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        As the Court said in the case of AG-v-Coastline PVCu Products Limited and SEB [2009] JRC 152 it is well known that exposure to asbestos can lead to the development of serious and often fatal diseases.  Certain types of material containing asbestos are particularly dangerous and accordingly the States have passed the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos-Licensing)(Jersey) Regulations 2008 which require that only licensed operators can undertake work involving these particularly dangerous materials.  Amongst these is asbestos insulation board which has been referred to in these proceedings as "AIB".

2.        The defendant company in this case agreed to demolish an agricultural shed for a neighbour of the owner of the company who is Mr Langlois.  The case as originally presented suggested that Mr Langlois simply did not think about whether any "AIB" or other dangerous form of asbestos might be present in the shed.  In fact it transpires from papers which have recently come to light that that is not the case.  We have been shown a quotation by the defendant company dated January 2008 for this work and attached to that was a very detailed and comprehensive waste management plan that referred specifically to the fact that a survey was needed for asbestos in the roof of the old spray shop and went on to say that an independent survey was required of CAC Limited, which is a licensed asbestos removal contractor.  The work in fact did not begin until 15 months later in April 2009 at which time Mr Langlois's wife had just given birth and it appears that he was fairly distracted and he played little part in the management of this project.  We are satisfied that it was human error which caused this incident, in that when the matter came to be dealt with in April 2009 people had forgotten about the quotation and the previous need to get a report and the matter simply proceeded.  In fact it turned out that there was "AIB" in the ceiling of part of the shed and two employees of the company were exposed to asbestos.  They had been provided with masks but these were not designed to prevent inhalation of asbestos fibres in the concentration in which they were released.  However, the moment the "AIB" was suspected the work stopped, the company informed Health and Safety and a licensed asbestos removal contractor, and no further exposure took place. 

3.        Because asbestos is so dangerous there is in existence a code of practice entitled "Management of Exposure to Asbestos in Work Place Buildings and Structures".  We have been provided with a copy.  This makes it clear that, before undertaking any work, contractors should ascertain from the person having responsibility for the premises whether there are any asbestos-containing materials in the building.  If such information is not forthcoming, no work should be carried out until appropriate steps have been taken to ascertain whether there are such materials and if they are suspected, this should be done by way of a survey by an appropriate competent person. 

4.        The defendant company has pleaded guilty in this case on the basis that it took insufficient steps to ascertain whether any "AIB" was present in this shed. 

5.        Mr James has spoken very persuasively in mitigation of this company.  I do not propose to recite the many points he made.  Suffice it to say that he has satisfied the Court that the company was fully co-operative the moment this matter came to light and they pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity.  They have taken steps to ensure that this should not happen again.  He has explained how the company has been built up from a one-man band to its present size, that Mr Langlois, as the sole beneficial owner, takes his responsibilities for Health and Safety very seriously and how there is a low turnover of staff because of the way in which the company manages its affairs. 

6.        We are satisfied that this incident occurred through human error.  This is to be distinguished from cases such as those in AG-v-Apex Contracts Limited [2008] JRC 095 where the Court held that there was an element of recklessness.

7.        Mr James has urged that we should reduce the fine to an aggregate one of £10,000 and we agree that that is a proper figure to reflect what occurred in this case. 

8.        The fine on the company will therefore be £5,000 on Count 1 and £5,000 on Count 2.  We also order costs in the sum of £2,500 as requested and we give the company fourteen days in which to pay.

Authorities

Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos-Licensing)(Jersey) Regulations 2008.

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, Articles 3, 10 and 21.

AG-v-Coastline PVCu Products Limited and States Employment Board [2009] JRC 152.

AG-v-Apex Contracts Limited [2008] JRC 095.

R-v-F. Howe and Son (Engineers) Limited [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37.

R-v-Board of Trystees of the Science Museum (1993) 3 All ER 853.