Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC133

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th July 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Alfonso Catering Meats Limited

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

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Defendant operated a bakery business at Rue de Pres premises.  An unannounced visit by Health and Safety Inspector on 4^th August, 2009, noted that various machines being used by employees were unguarded.  Dough mixer 1, with rotating kneading blade, was unguarded and an immediate Prohibition Notice (PN) was served.  Dough mixer 2 was similarly unguarded: an immediate PN was served.  The cutting blades of a bread slicing machine were unguarded: an immediate PN was served.  General standard of machine guarding poor, e.g. dough moulder, dough mixer in Pâtisserie, crushing hazard in the dough brake which cuts rolls. 

Second  visit made  5^th August, 2009, and it was observed that Dough Mixer 1 was still being operated unguarded, in breach of PN.  A fourth PN was served.  Appropriate guarding arrangements not finally in place until 21^st September, 2009.  Company's approach to managing health and safety reflected complete disregard for safety of employees and relevant legislation.  Repeated failures to heed Inspector's instructions and PN's. 

Details of Mitigation:

Admission of infractions.  Apologies to Court and Health and Safety Inspector.  All equipment now compliant with legislation. 

Previous Convictions:

3 relatively minor offences dealt with in Magistrate's Court. 

Conclusions:

Total:  £35,000 fine plus costs of £2,500. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

Period of 3 months given to pay fine. 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. L. Nicolle for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On a visit by Health and Safety inspectors to your premises on 4^th August, 2009, they were so concerned at the danger of injury to your employees by their hands coming into contact with sharp cutting equipment, that they served three immediate prohibition notices requiring that the machines not be used until an interlocking guard had been installed and operated; that is a guard which meant that the machine would automatically stop if the guard was removed.  There was another machine in respect of which they accepted an assurance from you that it would not be used until a defective interlocking guard was repaired.  What makes this case even more serious is that you ignored the prohibition notice in relation to one of the machines and you continued to allow it to be operated without the required safety measure being in place and in defiance of the notice. 

2.        Advocate Nicolle has explained on your behalf how that came to be, in that you had very experienced employees and you had perhaps been lulled into a false sense of security because there had been no previous accidents.  We also take into account that you have pleaded guilty and that you have taken steps now to rectify the position in the way that Advocate Nicolle has described.  But what is clear is that until this inspection you were paying no attention to health and safety matters at all.  As we say, what makes this particularly serious is the defiance of the prohibition notice.

3.         We have had some accounts produced to us in respect of 2008 and we have taken account of them but we are satisfied that, given the particular facts of this case, we cannot reduce the fines.  The fines must reflect the prolonged lack of interest and concern with health and safety matters, combined with the ignoring of the prohibition notice in respect of one of the machines. 

4.        Mr Luis, the company is going to be fined £15,000 on the first Count, £20,000 on the second Count, together with £2,500 costs but as requested we do grant 3 months to pay. 

Authorities

R-v-Board of trustees of the Science Musseum [1993] 3 All ER 853.

R-v-F. Howe & Sons [1999] 2 All ER 255.

AG-v-Deerglen (Jersey) Limited [2009] JRC 134.

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.